Glorney Teams

[hamish olson]

Lots of interesting points there Jacqui

[Alex Gillies]

Lots of interesting points there Jacqui

+1

For me its the information, communication and co-ordination that needs addressed. Its not a dig at the usual suspects who give countless hours already, simply stating the obvious. There are too many examples to mention.

The forum, apart from being overly critical at times, must seem antiquated to kids. We need a fresh look at how we communicate to the juniors and, perhaps even more important the parents as its awol. We need some sort of communications and technical director.

I was going to say we could do with a separate forum for juniors but it really needs to be more like facebook or twitter - possibly with the option of users using chess login names as many juniors would not want there real facebook account being linked to chess topics- We could do worse than have an junior representative as well - they are more computer savvy anyway

[robin moore]

Hope I am picking up the right vibes here.

The Liverpool Quadrangular (late Nov / early Dec normally) is the next important British Isles event on our junior chess calendar. It's almost certainly too late to consider changing the format for this year but It's worth having a look at future years.

The basics of the event...

1/ It brings together (at present) our best available u12 ( team of ten), best U14 (team of ten) and U16 (team of six) against Wales and two large English regions.

2/ We mostly travel together there and back on a private bus hire starting from Dundee with various pick ups.

3/ We tend to stay at different locations each year in the event area. One year it might be a youth hostel, the next it might be a small hotel, next it might be a travelodge/premier inn etc.

It's a great team building/ fun event that CS have recently been trying to increase quality/number of coaching support to.

I like the U12 and U14 sections.

I don't like the U16 section at it encroaches into the Scottish school prelim exam time (school exams come first and always will !!!). We have really struggled in the recent past with this section as the organisers (through no fault of their own) have had to move the event a week here and there to suit availability at the Liverpool college location.

If we requested to change the format slightly to drop the six person U16 team in favour of a six person U10 side, I feel this could be beneficial to ourselves and Wales certainly and probably to a slightly lesser extent the English regions. It may mean a few more parents attending but player numbers will remain the same.

The timing of the event in this format would be helpful, I feel, to selectors looking at national and international events in the months to come.

Most importantly, it would give some younger players an opportunity of international selection and experience (with coaching support) before the real toughies of the Glorney and overseas events appear on the scene.

[PeterReidSmith]

"I agree that we can learn from what other nations are doing. But I disagree that we need to "look seriously" at our selection procedures"

Glancing over these posts, it's really all quite fascinating.

Chess is a game of logic and reason, yet having returned to Scottish Chess fairly recently I'm too often left with the feeling that as a body we lack the ability to dispassionately apply either.

[Alex Gillies]

Robin
Think u10 team is worth a shout.
Really against scrapping u16 idea , u14 could play up and if numbers was concern reduce others from 10 to 8 or 6- also some who just missed out on glorney will get a chance to play if some missing due to exams

The real change needed is 3 games to 6 - or at least 2 then double game final and semi - makes the travel and costs more justified plus you will have more games to assess new talent - I would like this to put to organisers sooner than later if it was a commonly held view

[Andy Howie]

Organiser is Peter Purland and there will be a meeting during it to discuss the following year

[Phil Thomas]

Organiser is Peter Purland and there will be a meeting during it to discuss the following year

Spot on Andy = a key point

From what I know of previous years very little preparation or team selection will happen until shortly before the event for the English teams. - apart from fixing the date (usually 12 months beforehand) and booking the venue (not sure when Peter Purland does this).

Topic best discussed at a Junior Board meeting rather than on the notice board - perhaps it was ? I haven't seen the minutes.

Rather than speculate on the notice board about possible changes to the structure of this event why not have a CS office bearer write to Peter Purland to ask how flexible the structure is for December 2014 and make tentative suggestions for changes.

[Mike Scott]

Delighted to agree with Hamish

Lots of interesting points there Jacqui

I have to fork out an unimaginable amount of cash on swimming, more probably in one year than I did in total for Jonny in chess, and on a reduced income as well - I even have to pay about £5 per day to watch him race.

Why do I part with this money? Primarily because it is professionally organized with a structure and a coaching schedule that almost guarantees that swimmers will develop to their maximum potential.

It is very strict - if you do not train you do not compete, you only enter events through the club and can only enter events appropriate to your standard - you have to prove you are good enough before you swim in the top events. You do not get to come last in the world championships simply on the basis of being a big fish in a small swimming pool. You need to be world class to qualify.

Anyone note the impressive performances at the commie games by the world class scottish swimmers?

I thing Chess is stuck in a low cost/cheap rut. If you compare the cost of entering a weekend congress with almost any thing else - be that a round of golf, watching footie etc - it is far too cheap.

[Andrew McHarg]

"I agree that we can learn from what other nations are doing. But I disagree that we need to "look seriously" at our selection procedures"

Glancing over these posts, it's really all quite fascinating.

Chess is a game of logic and reason, yet having returned to Scottish Chess fairly recently I'm too often left with the feeling that as a body we lack the ability to dispassionately apply either.

I just want to clarify what I meant with my quote above, as I think it's quite ambiguous in its current form. What I meant was that I don’t think the results of the latest Glorney are reason alone to “look seriously” at our selection procedures, because it wouldn’t have mattered what selection procedures we had; we’d still have been heavily outgraded. To suggest otherwise seems to imply that a wildly different outcome could have been the result of having different selection procedures, and I’m sure we can all agree that this would be unlikely?

I'm not advocating that we shouldn't look at our selection procedures as a rule.

[PeterReidSmith]

Andrew,
Of course it starts with selection and whether or not that was optimal.
If not, then looking at other factors is potentially worse than useless.
Selection in this particular event has raised a few eyebrows to say the least - in fact, that is a fairly dramatic understatement in the interests of notice board propriety.

So, yes, I'd suggest we start there.