Glorney Teams

[Mike Scott]

Hi Peter

Of course it starts with selection

Selection is by definition some what near the end of the production line for producing a good team and certainly not the starting point. This is patently the case because you have to have a pool of players to select from to start with and its the process of developing that pool that is the critical path in ensuring a regular supply of players that have the ability and approach to become great chess players.

You could use any selection process you like in many countries and because of their depth in strength that team would be good.

Historically there has been virtually nothing in the way of a system that would encourage the development of players from their early days, it has been very much left to the ad hoc efforts of individuals and individual organizers - and I am not knocking these, its just not enough.

On the nitty gritty of selection - I have been involved in attempting to select players at many levels and would say that it is an impossible task, except for when there are the exceptional standout players that pick themselves. I think that all you can do is try and set out a methodology, apply it transparently, and to use the selection process in constructive manner. By the latter I think it is essential that if player A is not selected the reasons should be communicated to them so that they have the chance to so something about it.







Knowing how the notice board works I would like to stress that I am making no comment with regards the specific players involved this year.

[PeterReidSmith]

I see, ...

and...if at the end of all that production process we are left in doubt about the efficacy of the selection process then what will the end result be?

Still, I absolutely support your point about transparency - so, tell me, do you feel we have that?
Can you predict (or even justify) an outcome based on (the wealth of public) objective data?
Did you know when the selections were actually held/done?
And, was this published or evident to our members before hand, or even soon after?
Was there an opportunity for review and discussion and challenge?

Transparency...yes, good point, thank heavens we have that.

[Clement Sreeves]

The hyper sensitivity and defensiveness of some people on this noticeboard continues to astound me. Andrew McHarg thanks for backing up my viewpoint that we were totally outclassed in the Stokes Cup (the ratings prove my point that we need to provide better and greater volume of free coaching). Who will provide it though? Not Clement it would seem :-)

Can you clarify whether you mean the coaching is to be free for the juniors, or whether the coaches should be doing it for free.

If the former, then it is a noble intention but where are you planning to get the money from?

If the latter, then you are kidding yourself. Are there unpaid volunteers in Chess Scotland who work countless hours for the love of the game and desire to see the Scottish game improve? Yes, and I take my hat off to them because they are truly outstanding and I don't know where we would be without them. However if you want to see the structure of junior coaching improve then the only way to do so long-term is to pay coaches for the service they are providing. Otherwise what if nobody volunteers? 'Better and greater volume' is completely contradictory with 'free'. As Mike has pointed out, Chess at the moment is ridiculously cheap compared with other sports, and I know many of the current team of online coaches are offering great rates considering their skill level and experience.

[harrymarron]

Clement,

I think it's you that's kidding yourself. Firstly, most of the volunteers who put the hours in to support junior and senior chess clubs and competitions have little or nothing to do with chess scotland. They certainly don't do it in the name of chessscotland and, in a lot of cases, it's hard to see where chessscotland adds any value to what they are doing. With regard to my initial point I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that some element of free coaching could be had from those individuals wishing direct financial gain from the delivery of coaching (online or otherwise). Some badging, licensing or registration system for coaches could be brought in (or use the one already in place through chessscotland) with the deal being that before youre registered you need to provide an agreed amount of coaching hours per year at no cost to anyone. These would be delivered as appropriate, in the name of chessscotland. I disagree with previous posters comparing chess to football, swimming etc. There are far fewer overheads involved in setting up a chess board or an internet connection and the cost base should be in proportion. We will never grow as a chess playing nation unless as a larger group we contribute more for less. I want chess to grow among the wider population not have it priced out of parents pockets and dwindle both in numbers playing and ability level, as I fear will happen if nothing changes.

[Clement Sreeves]

Ok I said Chess Scotland but wasn't meaning only the organisation, just any chess volunteers in Scotland.

With regard to my initial point I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that some element of free coaching could be had from those individuals wishing direct financial gain from the delivery of coaching (online or otherwise). Some badging, licensing or registration system for coaches could be brought in (or use the one already in place through chessscotland) with the deal being that before youre registered you need to provide an agreed amount of coaching hours per year at no cost to anyone. These would be delivered as appropriate, in the name of chessscotland.

There is already a registration system in place. I would be all for some sort of compulsory training course, maybe a 1 or 2 day event held every so often like the one for arbiters.

Compulsory coaching for free? I just don't get it. Can you show me any organisation that does this? How many hours did you have in mind? For how many years after the initial registration??

[Derek Howie]

However if you want to see the structure of junior coaching improve then the only way to do so long-term is to pay coaches for the service they are providing. Otherwise what if nobody volunteers? 'Better and greater volume' is completely contradictory with 'free'. As Mike has pointed out, Chess at the moment is ridiculously cheap compared with other sports, and I know many of the current team of online coaches are offering great rates considering their skill level and experience.

I'd agree with this and would not want to enforce any level of free coaching. Most of the guys who do the paid coaching through CS at the moment do free coaching as well (recent Glorney?) which they don't shout about. Making it compulsory just risks annoying them and may end up reducing the amount of free coaching overall.

[David Deary]

I'd agree with this and would not want to enforce any level of free coaching. Most of the guys who do the paid coaching through CS at the moment do free coaching as well (recent Glorney?) which they don't shout about. Making it compulsory just risks annoying them and may end up reducing the amount of free coaching overall.

Well said!

From my experience, the paid online coaching is cheap for what it is - the guys could charge more and the fact they don't is a welcome contribution and I for one appreciate it. I know Daniel has benefited greatly from coaching from Clement and Gabe.

Also, perhaps for another topic - there is a motion to the AGM to create a Chess Coaches Committee, I would imagine this would cover some of the points Harry was making regarding registration etc.

[Andrew McHarg]

I disagree with previous posters comparing chess to football, swimming etc. There are far fewer overheads involved in setting up a chess board or an internet connection and the cost base should be in proportion.

The cost of a product or service isn't the only factor in determining the price of it for the end user. It costs £10 to buy a football, so maybe all football coaches should offer their services at rock-bottom prices (or free) too?

We will never grow as a chess playing nation unless as a larger group we contribute more for less.

As desirable as it may be, this won't happen. Why won't it happen? Because it never has happened and there's no logical reason why that'll change! We have a hard enough job just filling the positions that are currently there. Not everyone is as dedicated as guys like Andy Howie. But I also disagree that this precludes us from growing as a Chess-playing nation.

I want chess to grow among the wider population not have it priced out of parents pockets and dwindle both in numbers playing and ability level, as I fear will happen if nothing changes.

Chess is not pricey, as has already been stated (with the notable exception of juniors attending international events). I spent more on coffee last year than I did on Chess, and I usually drink tea! I agree with Clement on this. If parents want top quality coaches who are dedicated at what they do (and we do have these) then parents must expect to pay for that in the same way they will pay for piano lessons or tennis club membership. I also agree with Derek and David in that the coaches currently are not charging huge hourly rates; and tend to throw in quite a few freebies along the way. For parents who have very talented juniors but can't afford the coaching (and I do think this is an exception rather than the rule), perhaps the coaching fees could be covered by CS. This would be something worth considering in my view, but I certainly wouldn't try to force the coach to do the coaching free of charge.

[PeterReidSmith]

Our PVG process already has an expectation of a degree of free coaching - which seems reasonable. If I ever manage to complete the form, then (as I've said before) I'll happily help out.

There are though, many things to learn from the coaching techniques applied in other activities/sports - and one of those is that there is a cost to parents if they want to see material advancement. That, however, is unlikely to be an issue *IF* only chess were seen to be worth doing - on that, we need much better "PR"/Marketing together with an implicit confidence in the organisation and process of selection.

[robin moore]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.icu.ie/articles/454">http://www.icu.ie/articles/454</a><!-- m -->

A good report from the Irish contingent. The venue and organisation comes in for praise.