20-12-2011, 07:09 PM
It's not all about money all the time Andrew. It's about the fact that if we want our top players - who are sufficiently good that they can expect to make at least some money out of the game from time to time - to give up a large proportion of their annual holiday to participate in a tournament where they're almost certainly not going to win any prize money (I've got no idea what prize money is available at an Olympiad - I'd guess for the likes of us the occasional board prize and little else?) it helps to be able to offer them some remuneration. People have other things in their lives, and expenses, and families to provide for, and significant others who have no particular desire to spend a fortnight in Siberia watching people playing a board game. (Some of these latter concerns are less pertinent for the Seniors, though some aren't.)
David, if you think running Quality Chess does less for the game in Scotland than volunteering at local clubs, then fair enough, but I think they play a valuable role - apart from anything else, they produce a lot of very good books that can be used to coach: the puzzle book by John Shaw springs to mind, for instance.
I think it's really important to get as strong a team out as is feasible. It's our national team. The pinnacle of Scottish chess representation in the world. As long as the financial requirements aren't crippling, I think we should be aiming to make it an attractive option for our best players.
That said, I'd absolutely agree with Alex that nobody should be having an either-or discussion about adult v junior funding. In the last few years, junior chess seems to have been doing rather well, and we've been able to field some pretty strong Olympiad teams (incidentally, Andy - too many Andrews in this thread, I refer here to our esteemed international director - the team might not have performed absolutely to potential in the last couple tournaments but I seem to recall Keti getting over the GM title line in 2008, which is definitely something to be happy with). I'm not sure this is an area in need of radical reform.
David, if you think running Quality Chess does less for the game in Scotland than volunteering at local clubs, then fair enough, but I think they play a valuable role - apart from anything else, they produce a lot of very good books that can be used to coach: the puzzle book by John Shaw springs to mind, for instance.
I think it's really important to get as strong a team out as is feasible. It's our national team. The pinnacle of Scottish chess representation in the world. As long as the financial requirements aren't crippling, I think we should be aiming to make it an attractive option for our best players.
That said, I'd absolutely agree with Alex that nobody should be having an either-or discussion about adult v junior funding. In the last few years, junior chess seems to have been doing rather well, and we've been able to field some pretty strong Olympiad teams (incidentally, Andy - too many Andrews in this thread, I refer here to our esteemed international director - the team might not have performed absolutely to potential in the last couple tournaments but I seem to recall Keti getting over the GM title line in 2008, which is definitely something to be happy with). I'm not sure this is an area in need of radical reform.