06-08-2012, 11:58 AM
I've been trying to steer clear of this one, partly because in a week and a half I'm going to Prague with the European Youth squad, all of whom I am convinced will acquit themselves well, and partly because I've got a week and two days to write most of a dissertation. Nevertheless, some thoughts, in an unconnected and random order:
Jamie didn't say Adam was one of only three juniors worthy of support, he said that he was one of the top three under 20s in the live list. (Although Adam could possibly have pointed out that he no longer counts as a junior in the new grading year!)
I'm inclined to think that the 2100 rating barrier singled out is probably a bit on the high side: Angus, I'd say you're definitely right to argue that someone shouldn't need to be quite that high up the all-time juniors list to merit international selection. I don't think we should abandon the idea altogether though - as someone else said some time ago (Clement, I think), it'd definitely be daft sending a 500 to the under-18s if a freak of age-group distribution meant they were our best player. If we agree on that, then we're really just haggling over price (I do love that joke). I still believe that whether a player is selected should be a function of their strength rather than the strength of their peer-group: a 1400 who has three 1700s ahead of him is just as worthy of selection as a 1400 who is at the top of a weaker age-group.
I do think it's interesting that it's consistently the higher-rated players who are suggesting that grading limits (we could start using the phrase 'grading guidelines', which might be a fairer reflection of what people are talking about) should be used. You can interpret that either as deriving from elitist arrogance or a better understanding of what leads to improvement in chess, I suppose, but it's worth noting.
A key point about any rating ceiling is that the selectors are and will remain human beings who can choose to admit promising and clearly improving juniors whose numerical grades fall slightly short of any barrier that might look like preventing them from being selected. I don't think anyone's suggesting a hard, no-exceptions limit (and if they are, I would strongly disagree with them).
Yeah, these threads take a walk sometimes, but I don't think this is a particularly big deal. The forum isn't busy enough for this to be seriously confusing, and we're still talking about junior-squad-related issues. If the moderators have a problem with it, then it can be split up, but it started out as Angus's thread and he's still participating, so I don't think it's a problem. That said, it would be nice to have a thread where we did just talk about ways to gain funding, cause that's fairly important.
Andy - I don't know how Mike's going to give you examples of players who haven't improved without naming any names! I broadly agree with Alan's line on this: most players have improved, often significantly, but this is likely to be at least in part because a) they're young and improving anyway and b) they're being immersed in chess for a week and a half, which will obviously help.
I remember how terrific it was being (infrequently!) selected to play chess for Scotland, and it undeniably acts as an excellent motivator for our juniors. Whatever the policy on events like the European and World Youth, we should ensure that plenty of these youngsters have the chance to represent their country. But I really do think it might be a good idea for us to revisit the idea of sending development squads to tournaments like the British, the Czech Open and other large tournaments (others are far more knowledgeable than I am about the options out there) where most of the benefits (working with coaches, time spent immersed in the game, representing the country) can be replicated and we can possibly have the chance to aim for higher scores. Nobody's suggesting stopping people playing for their country, but the big, elite events need not be the only game in town.
I've never actually been to a European or World Youth before, so my opinions will be less wildly uninformed after the Prague event, to which I am very much looking forward!
Back to Tanzanian politics...
Jamie didn't say Adam was one of only three juniors worthy of support, he said that he was one of the top three under 20s in the live list. (Although Adam could possibly have pointed out that he no longer counts as a junior in the new grading year!)
I'm inclined to think that the 2100 rating barrier singled out is probably a bit on the high side: Angus, I'd say you're definitely right to argue that someone shouldn't need to be quite that high up the all-time juniors list to merit international selection. I don't think we should abandon the idea altogether though - as someone else said some time ago (Clement, I think), it'd definitely be daft sending a 500 to the under-18s if a freak of age-group distribution meant they were our best player. If we agree on that, then we're really just haggling over price (I do love that joke). I still believe that whether a player is selected should be a function of their strength rather than the strength of their peer-group: a 1400 who has three 1700s ahead of him is just as worthy of selection as a 1400 who is at the top of a weaker age-group.
I do think it's interesting that it's consistently the higher-rated players who are suggesting that grading limits (we could start using the phrase 'grading guidelines', which might be a fairer reflection of what people are talking about) should be used. You can interpret that either as deriving from elitist arrogance or a better understanding of what leads to improvement in chess, I suppose, but it's worth noting.
A key point about any rating ceiling is that the selectors are and will remain human beings who can choose to admit promising and clearly improving juniors whose numerical grades fall slightly short of any barrier that might look like preventing them from being selected. I don't think anyone's suggesting a hard, no-exceptions limit (and if they are, I would strongly disagree with them).
Yeah, these threads take a walk sometimes, but I don't think this is a particularly big deal. The forum isn't busy enough for this to be seriously confusing, and we're still talking about junior-squad-related issues. If the moderators have a problem with it, then it can be split up, but it started out as Angus's thread and he's still participating, so I don't think it's a problem. That said, it would be nice to have a thread where we did just talk about ways to gain funding, cause that's fairly important.
Andy - I don't know how Mike's going to give you examples of players who haven't improved without naming any names! I broadly agree with Alan's line on this: most players have improved, often significantly, but this is likely to be at least in part because a) they're young and improving anyway and b) they're being immersed in chess for a week and a half, which will obviously help.
I remember how terrific it was being (infrequently!) selected to play chess for Scotland, and it undeniably acts as an excellent motivator for our juniors. Whatever the policy on events like the European and World Youth, we should ensure that plenty of these youngsters have the chance to represent their country. But I really do think it might be a good idea for us to revisit the idea of sending development squads to tournaments like the British, the Czech Open and other large tournaments (others are far more knowledgeable than I am about the options out there) where most of the benefits (working with coaches, time spent immersed in the game, representing the country) can be replicated and we can possibly have the chance to aim for higher scores. Nobody's suggesting stopping people playing for their country, but the big, elite events need not be the only game in town.
I've never actually been to a European or World Youth before, so my opinions will be less wildly uninformed after the Prague event, to which I am very much looking forward!
Back to Tanzanian politics...