22-12-2011, 01:08 PM
Phil, I see you still haven't retracted your spurious comment on what another club supports. The arrogance in declaring the view of an entire club you are not a member or involved in is really quite something. I will ask you again to retract it and amend your post. It is supported by individual members but has hardly been endorsed by Greenwood Chess Club. Your post gives a false impression and is on the verge of deceitful.
I look forward to you posting this as I will strongly disagree with selective statistics again. For instance last year my Daniel’s grade (just to avoid confusion) increased by approximately 400 points. If any of that increase was attributed to the efforts of the IJD position or coaches I would strongly debate it. Paul coached Daniel on several occasions at the tail end of last season but much of his chess had already been played. I would argue that individual player’s work ethic, support of parents and family and mentors also makes a valuable contribution.
Back to topic:
I am supportive of extending the online coaching network and in fact I am looking to get Daniel some regular coaching for the first time. I believe this will help drive up standards of our young players and should be encouraged. That said there is a financial cost to all this as well which is borne by the parents/family I hope this does not act as barrier for some of our younger players' families who perhaps are not in a financial position to arrange regular coaching.
On the setting of grading bands for entry to the euro and world youths – perhaps surprisingly I am not opposed to it. However, to be based on the prior bands suggested earlier by Clement (I think) would be too severe but are something to aspire to as the standard of our juniors improve perhaps that’s where we could be in 5 to 10 years time?
We would need to set them where they are achievable for our juniors and they don’t need to be set in stone but can be moved before the start of a new season. In addition there needs to be some common sense applied if selectors believed a player was capable of performing well they should go even if they are 100 points lower than the band. Although for some a grading band would be a cast iron measure and if a junior were 1 point below it they wouldn’t go – For me that would be entirely wrong! It is that fear that worries me from prior experience of CS rules being set in stone I am somewhat reluctant to support grading bands without the caveat that they are a guide only.
Quote:When the July 2012 grades come out, I will compare them with the July 2011 and earlier grades and tell the notice board readers how much good has been done by Robin's efforts. Given the quality of the coaching skills of those recent junior getting involved I predict that the measurable benefit will be substantial. The credit I will attribute to Robin and the new coaches.
Yes I do know many other people put much work in but in the grand scheme of things the sum total of their efforts is near constant year upon year.
I look forward to you posting this as I will strongly disagree with selective statistics again. For instance last year my Daniel’s grade (just to avoid confusion) increased by approximately 400 points. If any of that increase was attributed to the efforts of the IJD position or coaches I would strongly debate it. Paul coached Daniel on several occasions at the tail end of last season but much of his chess had already been played. I would argue that individual player’s work ethic, support of parents and family and mentors also makes a valuable contribution.
Back to topic:
I am supportive of extending the online coaching network and in fact I am looking to get Daniel some regular coaching for the first time. I believe this will help drive up standards of our young players and should be encouraged. That said there is a financial cost to all this as well which is borne by the parents/family I hope this does not act as barrier for some of our younger players' families who perhaps are not in a financial position to arrange regular coaching.
On the setting of grading bands for entry to the euro and world youths – perhaps surprisingly I am not opposed to it. However, to be based on the prior bands suggested earlier by Clement (I think) would be too severe but are something to aspire to as the standard of our juniors improve perhaps that’s where we could be in 5 to 10 years time?
We would need to set them where they are achievable for our juniors and they don’t need to be set in stone but can be moved before the start of a new season. In addition there needs to be some common sense applied if selectors believed a player was capable of performing well they should go even if they are 100 points lower than the band. Although for some a grading band would be a cast iron measure and if a junior were 1 point below it they wouldn’t go – For me that would be entirely wrong! It is that fear that worries me from prior experience of CS rules being set in stone I am somewhat reluctant to support grading bands without the caveat that they are a guide only.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!