Forums

Mike Scott Wrote:I have no problem with those who want to play chess purely for fun or as a social activity. The World and Euros are however elite events and there are players who want to take part and need the support of CS to do so: both in terms of a subsidy but also in terms of training, before and during the event. The latter is made much harder when there is a significant numbers of players who are there for the culture.

That's the point though; the younger players you are referring to are the elite in their age category in Scotland. Setting an arbitrary minimum grade standard fails to realise that grade is rarely a reliable measure of true strenght internationally (especially among juniors). How many young players go abroad and consistently smash players well above their own grade? Using it as a wall to prevent them that opportunity isn't likely to inspire them to reach it, it's more likely to make them forget about it and go swimming instead.

Quote:How many young players go abroad and consistently smash players well above their own grade?

Firstly, not as many as go abroad and consistently lose to players well above their own grade. We don't spend nearly as much time focusing on the disappointing results and lower-scoring tournaments, for obvious and excellent reasons, but there's no point in pretending they don't happen (as they do to every other nation).

Secondly, the thing about that is that if you do it, your grade goes up. So, for instance, Kai Pannwitz pretty clearly isn't a 1230, just as Clement Sreeves is seriously undervalued by his grade of 2148 - but this is reflected by the fact that both of these players are seeing large rating rises this year. Grades aren't destiny, of course they're not, and players can improve rapidly, but a grade is an accurate barometer of how well a player has previously performed. By and large, our players are not seriously underrated - I've heard before that the Scottish system is on the parsimonious side, but that would mean more that a typical Scottish 1200 might be a 1270 elsewhere, as opposed to meaning that they're really 1500-strength.

Incidentally, this thread has really gone for a walk hasn't it?

Incidentally, in reply to Andy M's point about performance incentives:

The concept of incentivising is quite a solid one I think, though the parameters would need quite a bit of tweaking: I'm not sure how keen players would be to commit in advance to a tournament they might or might not receive any money at all for: perhaps if the numbers were changed to something along the lines of 70%-90%-110% it might be workable?

Andrew

Quote:Setting an arbitrary minimum grade standard fails to realise that grade is rarely a reliable measure of true strengh internationally (especially among juniors)

Please point out where I said you would set an arbitary grade?? That would be stupid. I am aware that for younger ones that it is harder to do but far from impossible.

Quote:How many young players go abroad and consistently smash players well above their own grade?

Very very few do so. And certainly not on a regular basis. There are indeed some excellent wins but most players really struggle because of their lack of experience and technical knowledge.

If we want to set a five year plan to drive players strengths upwards we need set targets and gradually rise them. My idea is that the bar is set low enough that almost everyone who would have normally qualified does so in the first year and then the bar is raised slowly year on year.

BTW for the older players one could easily define a grade that would indicate that they are likely to score a certain % of points.

Mike Scott Wrote:

Quote:How many young players go abroad and consistently smash players well above their own grade?

Very very few do so. And certainly not on a regular basis. There are indeed some excellent wins but most players really struggle because of their lack of experience and technical knowledge.

Okay perhaps I was mistaken with regard to the frequency of their wins; but do they consistently perform higher than their grades? How are they supposed to get the experience and technical knowledge without playing in tournaments like these? Nothing at home can prepare you for these events, like these events can!

Also; you didn't answer the point that these juniors are our elite in their age categories. The next Magnus Carlsen might be in Scotland somewhere and if we cannot open opportunities to them at big events then we might never discover what they are capable of.

Without knocking the overall benefits of playing in something like the world junior - and such an event should certainly be the target for all up and coming juniors, most of our junior players (in purely chess terms) would gain more from playing in the Open or Major of a couple of weekend congresses with the services of a coach at the event to help with post mortems.

A bit of work between events on the errors made would provide dividends.

The cost of this would be a fraction of that of a trip abroad. Coupled with playing in the Scottish and/or an event at the British would, in my opinion, see an improved standard.

Whilst I accept that most youngsters should be playing for enjoyment the most dedicated would benefit from this treatment and be toughened up before embarking on trips abroad.

Oh no, not another 5 year plan! Ok, I have my serious hat on now and I want to share a personal concern I have for the Euro and World Youth events. Alan Tate and I felt 10 juniors, like we had at the Euro in Bulgaria this year was about right. Andrew and Ali did most of their own prep and helped on the coaching front too which was great. Even with this help Alan and I were working hard from pre-breakfast till near midnight every day. We tried our very best to make sure every junior got the maximum support possible. I am not blowing any trumpets here but everyone there felt we had put in a professional, well organised effort throughout. Now we come to the problem. I want more juniors to go especially at younger age groups right down to U8 if we feel we have anyone strong enough. If we have a bigger group of juniors we are going to need extra coaching support and that will probably cost money. Strong juniors like Andrew and Ali need time to prepare for themselves. Any creative ideas from anyone are welcome both through here and by emailing Paul or myself. We don't want quality to suffer through quantity.

Robin.

David Deary Wrote:Phil,

As ever you use very select statistics that justify your point of view. I’m not a man to deal in generalities – as you say Jacob was IJD for a short time. John Shaw did some coaching. I believe Robin is correct when he states their support ‘currently’ has been zilch the facts don’t lie. I almost scoffed when I read that 50% of GMs have provided “significant” amounts of coaching time – significant is very subjective. As Robin stated no apology is necessary if our top players aren’t happy they can come on this board and justify it. I’m open to the debate as at least we’d know they were still around.

Also:

Quote: From the beginning you have addressed notice board and selectors as if you were the IJD. Maybe that is Paul's management style. In future the assistance I give to the new regime will be zilch. Does that, I wonder, make me an honorary GM ?

Again, I laughed out loud reading this.

On Robin’s coaching my brother thoroughly enjoyed it and asked me when he was getting his next session on endgame coaching.

I think you are being rather unfair on him in that regard and if anyone deserves an apology it is Robin. In my view that was a thinly veiled personal attack. If Robin is guilty of anything it is being overly enthusiastic and in my opinion that’s what we need! I don’t know if you are having withdrawal symptoms since leaving the IJD post but you should support the new ‘regime’ with constructive feedback/criticism not attempting to undermine it!

Quote: The shortage of funding is an issue, and I'm not sure what we're going to do about it - though we still haven't lost the grant yet have we? - but I doubt that cutting the support to our top players is the best way to solve it.

Hugh, I’m not sure we are talking about cutting funding to top players quite the opposite we are talking about pulling funding from Juniors and moving it to our top players. In my view the current split between the International Junior budget and International Budget should remain the same.

Quote: What about the support Staff? Heads of Delegation, Arbiters, Coaches etc. We have to take holidays as well to put the events on as well as the large amounts of time taken to get the events on in the first place. What would happen if we took the attitude of "I'm not doing a 9 round tournament for less than £1000?"

Hear Hear! You guys are the ones keeping Chess in Scotland ticking over and unlike Angus I don’t believe it would be quite as easy to replace you. The experience that yourself, Donald, Alex et al have could not be replaced with a few months of training. In an ideal world you guys should receive remuneration for your efforts and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth reading appearance fees of £1,000 for GMs when you guys are lucky to get 1% of that for controlling the same tournament. Sickening… :\

David,
2 comments I need to make and then the rest will be silence - at the request of my wife.


(1) Selective statistics I included all Grandmasters resident in Scotland when I talked about contributions made by the top players. 2 out of 4 contributing in recent times is I still suggest significant.

Support for the endgame coaching programme once you exclude the Thomas family who vote 2 to 1 against has come from the following clubs

Greenwood
Greenwood
Greenwood
Greenwood


(2) It is not acceptable and it will never be acceptable for visitors to my home to tell me to be quiet in front of my children.

I have got my freshly prepared olive branch here.

Phil,

I felt it was obvious to all I was talking about current "top" players not ones from the past, no matter how recent.

David (and Daniel) Deary do indeed play for the same club as me (Greenwood) but in a different division playing for a different team.

The endgame strategy stuff was never intended to be a replacement in any shape or form for existing coaching. As I have said many times before, I am a limited player but am ok if I simply stick to this stuff. Different players are more comfortable with it than others. Kai Pannwitz took to it quicker than Alan Tate, Kirsty McCusker took to it quicker than Gary Gillespie.

When I came to your house to give an endgame strategy lesson to Matthew and Daniel, you were constantly interrupting and not allowing me to do my training correctly. I politely asked you not to say anything (in front of your boys) as It was them I was trying to give the lesson to.

I now unreservedly apologise if you were offended by me asking this of you.

Now, let's move on.

Robin.

Phil Thomas Wrote:Support for the endgame coaching programme once you exclude the Thomas family who vote 2 to 1 against has come from the following clubs

Greenwood
Greenwood
Greenwood
Greenwood

That is rather disengenous, I hadn't realised you had actually discussed the endgame training course with every recipient as I'm sure their views would be useful. I also hadn't realised we had rolled out the training at our club - thats news to me. I'm sure thats news to Stephen Taylor as well!

I gave Daniel's opinion of the training and my view based on his opinion. As far as I am aware, Daniel is the only club member to have received the training. If you know of any other members feel free to enlighten me but please get your facts in order in future. You have very little knowledge (if any) of Greenwood Chess Club and I would suggest you retract the above statement. As it is very misleading to anyone else reading this thread

Back to the topic:

Alex McFarlane Wrote:Without knocking the overall benefits of playing in something like the world junior - and such an event should certainly be the target for all up and coming juniors, most of our junior players (in purely chess terms) would gain more from playing in the Open or Major of a couple of weekend congresses with the services of a coach at the event to help with post mortems.

A bit of work between events on the errors made would provide dividends.

The cost of this would be a fraction of that of a trip abroad. Coupled with playing in the Scottish and/or an event at the British would, in my opinion, see an improved standard.

Whilst I accept that most youngsters should be playing for enjoyment the most dedicated would benefit from this treatment and be toughened up before embarking on trips abroad.

Alex, I am not sure how much I agree with your suggestion. I actually think is is good for juniors to win the odd Minor/Major before plunging into the Opens as it gives them a confidence boost and can help with motivation. However, playing in the Open and getting battered initially would be a real test of a young player's character and could actually have a negative impact on their morale and enjoyment.

That said, perhaps its something we should be doing. I don't know... :\