21-12-2011, 11:40 AM
Mike Scott Wrote:Derek/Jacqui,
I am sure you are probably correct that from a CS point of view it might not cost much more to send 10 players rather than 5 (or whatever the numbers) however I was thinking about all the resources that get spent on these events - including the monies from parents and the time and energies of the poor sod organizing it and the coach travelling with the team.
My view is that while the players do often have a great experience and some do learn lessons, it is simply not an efficient use of resources: the monies spent by CS & parents would achieve far more in terms of developing chess skills if re-directed towards skills development and participating in lower cost events at a more appropriate level. I know that parents will always be more willing to spend more sending their little Jonny to the world or euros but I also know that if I had confidence in an alternative scheme that would mean that my Jonny would be a better player, better able to compete, next year then I would've been (and would be) willing to spend a reasonable amount on such a scheme.
Sorry to mention swimming again but there is a structure and system there and parents pay (alot!) of money but are willing to do so because they can see what they're getting back.
I do also feel that it is wrong to treat the Worlds/Euros as anything other than elite events that players must earn the right to play in. Yes there are 'free' places available but by allocating those places to players who are not sufficiently strong without having the resources to have enough coaches is an issue. Not only does it use up parental reserves it means that the stronger players get less time with the coach and it is much harder to generate a focus and attitude as a squad.
Personally I would like to see grading targets set that players must obtain before they will be considered for selection. These grading bars can be set relatively low initially but raised as time passes. I would stress that I would see this only working in the context that CS puts in place a national scheme to make it possible for players to develop and reach these targets and that other events are identified that can be used as stepping stones to the worlds/euros and to which those that do not qualify for the worlds can go to.
This is a bad idea Mike You would polarise the Chess scene and the younger juniors would lose interest. IMO there are two sides of going abroad as part of the national Chess team: 1) they have an opportunity to compete at a tournament which they might never again have (life experience - like going to the Great Wall of China or something); 2) It gives them inspiration and incentive to keep playing - far more so than watching pieces move on a screen as our top players push pawns in distant lands. It's also true that no parent would spend the same amout of money on their child if they weren't going abroad. They endure the cost because they are going abroad - so it wouldn't translate into a more beneficial exercise if spent on coaching (from a strengt of play point of view) because not nearly as much would be actually spent. Quite frankly I'd rather my child (if I had one) went abroad and had the opportunity to experience another culture and have a good time for a week, than sit in a room with a Chess coach at home for the same period. Perhaps the coaching would make them a better player, but will it make them happier... probably not. Surely, since Chess is a game, it should be about how much the children enjoy it before anything else?
There's more to Chess than just being good at it!
Angus,
Why compare Chess to top sports? They are totally different things. While it's true that the top players in a sport earn the most money doing what they do, the referees don't work free of charge. The top football referees or tennis umpires make a living from what they do; but what the likes of Andy and Alex do is all voluntary. I don't agree that anyone could just do what they do if they decided to stop. It's a rare and extremely valuable asset to find guys who are commited and prepared to work for no remuneration.
Let's be honest, if Scotland never saw a couple of our top GMs again, it would have little impact. If Alex and Andy hung up the gloves tomorrow - we'd be screwed... epically.