11-03-2014, 10:46 AM
There are really three attitudes that you can take towards juniors paying for grading
1. It is all very beneficial for junior games to be graded and we want juniors to be excited by having a grade, so lets make it free.
2. Juniors are an important part of the chess community, in tight financial conditions junior should pay their way. There is really no reason why they should get a free ride.
3. There is a compromise let juniors pay a little then they will be more of a stakeholder in ChessScotland and paying, even a little, will make their grading more 'valuable'.
Option 3 often appears to be attractive, but I would be really wary of it. Think about how much these proposals are going to raise - are they worth it? David seems to be suggesting that a junior organisation can affiliate to ChessScotland and get all their games graded for free. Does this mean that the UK Chess Challenge could affiliate? You could end up with a lot of fairly silly games being graded and a lot of extra work being created, and for £40?
Please don't imagine that option 2 will signal the end of junior chess in some way. Michael Hanley will not stop organising his junior events because CS are charging for grading - he will find a pragmatic solution. Maybe he will simply grade the games himself and the players will have a Hamilton Junior grade. That is not a problem or a challenge to CS. You start out with a regional grade then as you progress you get a national rating. Why is that a problem? As adults we accept that as the case with national and International ratings.
If you go for option 1 then if juniors pay less then adults pay more. It is often assumed that adults will resent this. However, I really have seen very little evidence for this. In my experience, if you outline how you will spend money for the general good then the membership will support you.
1. It is all very beneficial for junior games to be graded and we want juniors to be excited by having a grade, so lets make it free.
2. Juniors are an important part of the chess community, in tight financial conditions junior should pay their way. There is really no reason why they should get a free ride.
3. There is a compromise let juniors pay a little then they will be more of a stakeholder in ChessScotland and paying, even a little, will make their grading more 'valuable'.
Option 3 often appears to be attractive, but I would be really wary of it. Think about how much these proposals are going to raise - are they worth it? David seems to be suggesting that a junior organisation can affiliate to ChessScotland and get all their games graded for free. Does this mean that the UK Chess Challenge could affiliate? You could end up with a lot of fairly silly games being graded and a lot of extra work being created, and for £40?
Please don't imagine that option 2 will signal the end of junior chess in some way. Michael Hanley will not stop organising his junior events because CS are charging for grading - he will find a pragmatic solution. Maybe he will simply grade the games himself and the players will have a Hamilton Junior grade. That is not a problem or a challenge to CS. You start out with a regional grade then as you progress you get a national rating. Why is that a problem? As adults we accept that as the case with national and International ratings.
If you go for option 1 then if juniors pay less then adults pay more. It is often assumed that adults will resent this. However, I really have seen very little evidence for this. In my experience, if you outline how you will spend money for the general good then the membership will support you.