2014 Junior International Events

[Hugh Brechin]

As a parent of a child who has worked hard to become the top player in their age group I would be non to chuffed to find that funding allocated to the age group for my child has been used for another player from another age group, albeit with a higher chess grade than my child. Juniors put a lot of hard work into their chess and parents give up a lot of their time and finances to support them. Many juniors strive to achieve the number one spot in their age group and to achieve that precious funded place to play for Scotland.

I can see the argument here, and once upon a time I'd have agreed with it - in my young days, I was very proud of being the strongest Scottish player in my age band. The issue I have with this, though, is that it makes selection a function of the strength of a player's peer group, rather than of the strength of that player. Scotland's chess-playing population is small enough to make that a potentially serious issue. I was the strongest player in my particular age category not because I was a rare talent or because I worked colossally hard, but because, as it happened, there wasn't really anyone else very good in the same age category as me. That didn't make me any more worthy of selection than someone like David Oswald, who spent most of our junior years slightly younger than me (well, alright, he spent all of them slightly younger than me), a bit higher-rated than me and not as highly rated as Chris MacDonald, with whom he had the misfortune to share an age bracket.

(That said, the fact that the age categories are two years wide meant that I didn't get picked; Colin Hall and Steven Tweedie were out of sight above me as well. Which was fair enough, I wasn't very good.)

A lot of players work very hard at their chess, and have parents who support them generously and tirelessly - I know I fell into the second category at least, and I'm very thankful for it. Some have stronger peer groups than others; to my mind, a selection policy which is at least in part based on absolute rather than relative strength is fairer, as well as more likely to bring the maximum benefit. I also agree with Hamish that going to these tournaments (especially the European Championships) can be very tough, and there might be better ways to develop some youngsters.

All of that said, I've actually got no idea what the legal position with regards to the funded places is. I suspect that the money goes to the organisation to use as it sees fit, but only if those places are taken up. (So you can give one and a half funded places to under-14s if that's a strong age group, but only if someone is willing to give up half their funding for an under-12 place, or something analogous to that, which obviously they're within their rights to refuse to do; with the organisation then being within their rights to offer the half-funded place to the next guy or girl down.) If anyone more knowledgeable than me can clarify that, or tell me I'm talking total nonsense, it'd be very welcome.