Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
All
Currently GMs get appearance fees at the Olympiad.
However the team has played badly recently
Our Senior team currently get great results but no subsidy and now the possibility of appearance fees is now a topic here too.
I am open-minded here as to what should happen on a tight budget between allocating to
junior/adult/senior/IM chasers
and whether money in a team should be skewed towards the top players or not
If anyone cares to post here or email me than that will help me make decisions in allocating the budget for 2012
Posts: 112
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2011
The olympaid is the height of the chess calander other than maybe super tournaments/World Champs ect. We should try to show our best side here and if that means paying our best players to participate then we definitely have to set at least some of the budget aside to getting the likes of John Shaw and Colin McNab to play.
On the junior/norm chaser front here's an interesting idea: why don't we try combining these. There are many international opens which will give our juniors strong opponents while giving norm hunters the opportunities they need. This will provide the juniors with both the games they need and the possibility of coaching with the stronger players out there and the stronger players get the chances they need to make norms and improve. Tournaments like the British where there is a strong open for older players and a major open/age group tournaments for kids. Just an idea but seems like a logical way to combine two issues.
Cheers
Calum
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
My opinion for what its worth:
Money should be invested heavily in Junior chess and in my view the majority of the CS budget should be channeled there for internationals. And heres why I believe that:
Juniors are the players of the future and we should always focus on developing future talent rather than over subsidise our current crop. In a time of scarce resource you need to focus most on what matters most and for me that is junior chess.
Secondly, I am astounded by the lack of involvement our 'top players' have in giving back to the wider chess community and the membership. I was at the Liverpool Quadrangular and was amazed by the time and enthusiasm Mathew Turner put into coaching and going through the games of our juniors. For no renumeration!
If our 'top players' want subsidy then I would prefer to see them doing something to earn it rather than request appearance fees and renumeration for playing for their country and giving nothing back. If top players are to be funded they should make a commitment to give something back.
Ultimately, I believe that CS funds should not be skewed in favour of our top players but to our juniors.
Also as a member of CS I am extremely uncomfortable by the existing level of subsidy provided to top players who don't give anything back. If top players are happy to give back I am happy for there to be subsidy but it should not reduce the junior budget!
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
I am all for supporting juniors but it has to be done in a targeted way. So often it is has been spent on subsidising chess holidays at the Euro or World Youths for players that have either already stopped playing or have hardly started playing.
I would suggest that more is spent on those with a track record and are in the J16 and over age group. If there are pennies left over then I would work backwards from there.
I think David's comments about the responsibility of GMs/IMs getting payments apply to Juniors in the sense that I believe they must be seen to earn the right to get the subsidy. So for example the subsidy could be paid only to those who are getting regular coaching and play regularly.
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Hi Mike,
For once - I think we are in agreement. Although I would lower your track record to J14 and over age group.
I also accept that juniors also bare a responsibility for getting subsidy - ie being an active tournament player and receiving regular coaching could be used as a condition and I am not averse to it. If comparable rules were applied at the other end where top players would have to give something back to the system that contributed to them being where they are now. I believe this would be to the benefit of chess in Scotland and I am surprised it doesn't appear to happen currently.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Andy, just for clarification:
Are you trying to take money out of the Junior Budget and reallocate money to the Internationals? If so, surely this concerns the IJD as well?
Also when does the CS Budget run from is it January to December or April to March? When are these proposed budget changes to happen is it from 2012 or 2013?
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
David,
Financial year runs from May to end of April.
In the first stage of setting a budget all directors put in a requested amount. Andrew Muir has intimated that he will be applying for a larger budget for financial year 2012-2013. All directors are free to do so. Of course if total requests exceed total budget available then some scaling down become necessary.
Mike,
The junior selction rules already require activity to be taken into account. I hope you remember from the time you served as one of my selectors that activity levels were a vital part of the selection process.
Receiving regular coaching would be a strange selction criterion. Given a choice between 2 juniors of similar grading and rate of grade increase & that one of them is known to receive regular coaching and the other is self taught/ gets no coaching/ or to be pedantic has no visible coach. Which one of the two has the greater potential to become really a really strong player?
Posts: 278
Threads: 19
Joined: Aug 2011
Mike's son is a J16. David's brother is a J14. Any idea what age group I'd suggest?
Going back to the OP, I'm not sure that the performance of the team should dictate the level of support.
It's a difficult issue to comment on as I don't know how a switch in support from the Olympiad team to the Seniors team would decrease/increase the quality of the respective teams. However the Olympiad team should take priority.
The allocation between adults and juniors would seem to me to be a separate issue. The international budget for 2011/12 shows £1,500 for adult events and £8,000 for junior events.
Posts: 455
Threads: 46
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Whilst I agree with almost everything said above the other side of the arguement must be put.
What is a major encouragement to so many really good young footballers to continue. It is the rewards offered to the top players. What rewards are on offer to the top chess players in Britain? Unfortuneately very few.
If we want to encourage youngsters to continue playing chess you must have some sort of reward system in place. The current financial structure discourages many of our top juniors from putting in the effort to continue to progress.
It could be argued that all available money should be pumped into adult chess in an attempt to create a structure that would allow players to progress even at adult level. After all parents will pay for their children regardless of any subsidy. Indeed if proper professional coaching was being paid for on a regular basis we would be able to support professional chess players in this country AND have better juniors. This would certainly be viewed by everyone as a win, win situation.
Before anyone panics, I am playing Devil's Advocate but there is a certain amount of truth in my theory and probably as much as in the arguement for everything going to juniors.
With limited funds getting the balance right is nearly impossible.
We need top class events to promote chess and get the media interested. With media interest you have more chance of attracting people (and sponsors).
What is needed is everyone pulling to gether to get a bit of momentum going. There should not be a debate over funding adult v junior chess to the detriment of both.
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
Derek
Quote:Mike's son is a J16. David's brother is a J14. Any idea what age group I'd suggest?
My thoughts entirely! :-)
But not quite. I do think that the older juniors / young adults deserve more support than they have had over the years and get relatively ignored: especially those that are not no 1 or 2 in their age group. Apart from Jacqui's excellent weekend I don't think there has been anything run for the older players - certainly not on a regular basis. I know the CS has largely left Jonny to his own devices prior to his trips abroad.
To answer your question: you can not possibly know which of the two players has the most potential, or at least will achieve the most. I would back the player that was willing to work hardest. As I have said in the 'mindset' thread - so many of the 'naturally' gifted players drop up because they simply do not learn the work habit.
My feeling is that we should actually take a long term view and rather than spend resources on sending a few juniors to the Euros/Worlds we should be spending resources on making sure there is a national development scheme in place that ensures that all juniors are getting training and training in the right areas, so that when they do turn up at these events they already know their basic endings and their openings. The work done at these events should be more in the category of revision than anything else.
That is not the same as saying that players do not go, rather a question of what the priority is for CS's resources (and I include in this the over worked director's time).
