Appearance fees for our best players

[David Deary]

Phil,

As ever you use very select statistics that justify your point of view. I’m not a man to deal in generalities – as you say Jacob was IJD for a short time. John Shaw did some coaching. I believe Robin is correct when he states their support ‘currently’ has been zilch the facts don’t lie. I almost scoffed when I read that 50% of GMs have provided “significant” amounts of coaching time – significant is very subjective. As Robin stated no apology is necessary if our top players aren’t happy they can come on this board and justify it. I’m open to the debate as at least we’d know they were still around.

Also:

From the beginning you have addressed notice board and selectors as if you were the IJD. Maybe that is Paul's management style. In future the assistance I give to the new regime will be zilch. Does that, I wonder, make me an honorary GM ?

Again, I laughed out loud reading this.

On Robin’s coaching my brother thoroughly enjoyed it and asked me when he was getting his next session on endgame coaching.

I think you are being rather unfair on him in that regard and if anyone deserves an apology it is Robin. In my view that was a thinly veiled personal attack. If Robin is guilty of anything it is being overly enthusiastic and in my opinion that’s what we need! I don’t know if you are having withdrawal symptoms since leaving the IJD post but you should support the new ‘regime’ with constructive feedback/criticism not attempting to undermine it!

The shortage of funding is an issue, and I'm not sure what we're going to do about it - though we still haven't lost the grant yet have we? - but I doubt that cutting the support to our top players is the best way to solve it.

Hugh, I’m not sure we are talking about cutting funding to top players quite the opposite we are talking about pulling funding from Juniors and moving it to our top players. In my view the current split between the International Junior budget and International Budget should remain the same.

What about the support Staff? Heads of Delegation, Arbiters, Coaches etc. We have to take holidays as well to put the events on as well as the large amounts of time taken to get the events on in the first place. What would happen if we took the attitude of "I'm not doing a 9 round tournament for less than £1000?"

Hear Hear! You guys are the ones keeping Chess in Scotland ticking over and unlike Angus I don’t believe it would be quite as easy to replace you. The experience that yourself, Donald, Alex et al have could not be replaced with a few months of training. In an ideal world you guys should receive remuneration for your efforts and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth reading appearance fees of £1,000 for GMs when you guys are lucky to get 1% of that for controlling the same tournament. Sickening… :\

[Mike Scott]

Derek/Jacqui,
I am sure you are probably correct that from a CS point of view it might not cost much more to send 10 players rather than 5 (or whatever the numbers) however I was thinking about all the resources that get spent on these events - including the monies from parents and the time and energies of the poor sod organizing it and the coach travelling with the team.

My view is that while the players do often have a great experience and some do learn lessons, it is simply not an efficient use of resources: the monies spent by CS & parents would achieve far more in terms of developing chess skills if re-directed towards skills development and participating in lower cost events at a more appropriate level. I know that parents will always be more willing to spend more sending their little Jonny to the world or euros but I also know that if I had confidence in an alternative scheme that would mean that my Jonny would be a better player, better able to compete, next year then I would've been (and would be) willing to spend a reasonable amount on such a scheme.

Sorry to mention swimming again but there is a structure and system there and parents pay (alot!) of money but are willing to do so because they can see what they're getting back.

I do also feel that it is wrong to treat the Worlds/Euros as anything other than elite events that players must earn the right to play in. Yes there are 'free' places available but by allocating those places to players who are not sufficiently strong without having the resources to have enough coaches is an issue. Not only does it use up parental reserves it means that the stronger players get less time with the coach and it is much harder to generate a focus and attitude as a squad.

Personally I would like to see grading targets set that players must obtain before they will be considered for selection. These grading bars can be set relatively low initially but raised as time passes. I would stress that I would see this only working in the context that CS puts in place a national scheme to make it possible for players to develop and reach these targets and that other events are identified that can be used as stepping stones to the worlds/euros and to which those that do not qualify for the worlds can go to.

[Angus McDonald]

David D,

Allthough I do agree that Alex, Donald and Andy do a good job there isn't enough money in chess to increase remuneration to officials. Also I don't think the volunteering model is wrong. It becomes wrong when it is the same people that have to do all the tournaments. What is needed is more arbiters. Perhaps some retired chess players who would enjoy rubbing shoulders with GMs and IMs. I still get a kick out of seeing GMs and IMs. I'd volunteer for a week or so of watching how they do it.
Also I don't support £1,000 appearance fees to GMs either. What's offered needs to be proportional to the amount of money around in Scottish Chess and all that money is required to provide. I think GMs need to meet the organiser more than half way here. Recognise the organisers voluntary efforts to provide a quality tournament to keep the profile of Chess in Scotland high and accept a sensible incentive to play and add to the prestige of the tournament which can only be good for Scottish GMs long term.

Mike,
I'm looking at the under 18 open age bracket next year and there are 6 that I would select now! (I'm not a selector though) for those tournaments. Say 3 in Euroyouth and 3 in World Youth. There are a couple of younger age groups where it's similar. Why would you try and restrict this to 5 players for the whole squad?
Also I think the top Scottish player at any age group has the right to represent their country in Euroyouth or World Youth. Just being the best in their country should be enough. Obviously the higher the grade the better but if they are the best and want to go they should go. imho

[Andrew McHarg]

Derek/Jacqui,
I am sure you are probably correct that from a CS point of view it might not cost much more to send 10 players rather than 5 (or whatever the numbers) however I was thinking about all the resources that get spent on these events - including the monies from parents and the time and energies of the poor sod organizing it and the coach travelling with the team.

My view is that while the players do often have a great experience and some do learn lessons, it is simply not an efficient use of resources: the monies spent by CS & parents would achieve far more in terms of developing chess skills if re-directed towards skills development and participating in lower cost events at a more appropriate level. I know that parents will always be more willing to spend more sending their little Jonny to the world or euros but I also know that if I had confidence in an alternative scheme that would mean that my Jonny would be a better player, better able to compete, next year then I would've been (and would be) willing to spend a reasonable amount on such a scheme.

Sorry to mention swimming again but there is a structure and system there and parents pay (alot!) of money but are willing to do so because they can see what they're getting back.

I do also feel that it is wrong to treat the Worlds/Euros as anything other than elite events that players must earn the right to play in. Yes there are 'free' places available but by allocating those places to players who are not sufficiently strong without having the resources to have enough coaches is an issue. Not only does it use up parental reserves it means that the stronger players get less time with the coach and it is much harder to generate a focus and attitude as a squad.

Personally I would like to see grading targets set that players must obtain before they will be considered for selection. These grading bars can be set relatively low initially but raised as time passes. I would stress that I would see this only working in the context that CS puts in place a national scheme to make it possible for players to develop and reach these targets and that other events are identified that can be used as stepping stones to the worlds/euros and to which those that do not qualify for the worlds can go to.

This is a bad idea Mike You would polarise the Chess scene and the younger juniors would lose interest. IMO there are two sides of going abroad as part of the national Chess team: 1) they have an opportunity to compete at a tournament which they might never again have (life experience - like going to the Great Wall of China or something); 2) It gives them inspiration and incentive to keep playing - far more so than watching pieces move on a screen as our top players push pawns in distant lands. It's also true that no parent would spend the same amout of money on their child if they weren't going abroad. They endure the cost because they are going abroad - so it wouldn't translate into a more beneficial exercise if spent on coaching (from a strengt of play point of view) because not nearly as much would be actually spent. Quite frankly I'd rather my child (if I had one) went abroad and had the opportunity to experience another culture and have a good time for a week, than sit in a room with a Chess coach at home for the same period. Perhaps the coaching would make them a better player, but will it make them happier... probably not. Surely, since Chess is a game, it should be about how much the children enjoy it before anything else?

There's more to Chess than just being good at it!

Angus,

Why compare Chess to top sports? They are totally different things. While it's true that the top players in a sport earn the most money doing what they do, the referees don't work free of charge. The top football referees or tennis umpires make a living from what they do; but what the likes of Andy and Alex do is all voluntary. I don't agree that anyone could just do what they do if they decided to stop. It's a rare and extremely valuable asset to find guys who are commited and prepared to work for no remuneration.

Let's be honest, if Scotland never saw a couple of our top GMs again, it would have little impact. If Alex and Andy hung up the gloves tomorrow - we'd be screwed... epically.

[Angus McDonald]

Andrew McH,

I wouldn't be adverse to arbiters getting similar remuneration to football referees if there was as much money in Chess as there was in football. As a % of what top players get though I reckon it's a very very small %

I actually believe that Chess can potentially be one of the biggest sports in the World. I'd urge all enthusiasts to stick at it! The day of Chess will come! I actually believe the hundreds of millions of Chess players in the World statistics.

and no I havn't been at the festive plonk.

[Andrew McHarg]

The trouble with Chess Angus is that it's boring to watch (for most people). Football makes its money because thousands of people watch it every week.

Chess has a unique appeal actually. If we are to promote Chess and get people more interested in it then we need to focus on the brand of Chess; instead of comparing it directly to things like football (as if it's some sort of alternative) - a battle which Chess will never win imo.

[Angus McDonald]

Andrew,

I agree with that. I wasn't meaning to say Chess is like Football. It isn't. It is as you say unique.

And yes it is about the Brand.

With the excellent work you've done on the website it's people like you who may make the difference.
Mind you CS has always had an excellent website in the last 8 years in which I've been interested. I'd have no hesitation in pointing a potential sponsor to the website to find out all about Chess Scotland. And when you consider that it's quite likely that any sponsor would have their name presented on Chess Websites throughout the World as the good news of Chess sponsorship was lauded we potentially have a big reach for a sponsor.

The Brand needs to be established and marketed. It's too big a job for one person or indeed a few perhaps it needs a 'working group' of talented chess supporters working together and encouraging each other?

[Andrew McHarg]

Thanks Angus

I think a group with a marketing strategy is a good idea. Before they contact anyone though, they should first establish what advertising services CS can offer, for how much, and what kinds of companies might have a target market similar to Chess.

So... what kinds of products do people who are interested in Chess also enjoy/need/want? Worth contacting companies like Chessbase/whoever makes Fritz/Chess.com/ICC/Playchess etc to see if they would be willing to pay for an advert on our website?

Something like (examples):
- An advert on the left panel of the website (which can be seen on the homepage and most other migrated pages) is £500 / year.
- An advert in the Scottish Chess magazine is £500 / year (for a whole page).
- Sponsoring a tournament is based on the number of entrants but flyers can be distributed for 50p per flyer.

Thoughts?

[Angus McDonald]

That's one model Andrew and I think with lots of time an effort put in that it could work.

My hunch would be to aim bigger than this and go all out for a big name sponsor.

The Carot or the hook being the International outreach of Chess. I believe a Sponsor of Chess in Scotland could have their name in houses throughout the World within a week of giving sponsorship to Chess. I believe other Chess sites would do this work for us. Chess is an International Community and we do need to support each other in this. The Chess Scotland website would then be linked to with masses of information there on the Chess Scotland website about the sponsor and the sponsorship and even links to the companies website or even home shopping page!?
When we say their name in houses throughout the World I think we are talking about millions of homes. If you do a search on Chess websites there are often many within each country in the World. We make a database of these sites and show it to a potential sponsor. The list could be many pages long. Perhaps a working group to compile that list. i.e. in Brazil there are at least 20 chess websites. In the USA ? How many hits does Susan Polgar's site get around the World. Would she run a story about Chess Scotland gaining sponsorship? She runs all Chess stories. How many Chess website in Spain? Germany? France? etc,etc, Russia, China, Mongolia, Macao.
I mention the last 2 because they both sent teams to the World Youth in Brazil. Nearly every country in the World must have a Chess website.
Just some ideas.

regards,
Angus

[Mike Scott]

Andrew,
I disappointed with this sort of attitude. What is so wrong at setting the bar high and encouraging our juniors to aspire to being as good as they can be? And to provide them with the tools to do so?

If you want cultural experiences then contact Thomas Cook - they also need your money.

I have no problem with those who want to play chess purely for fun or as a social activity. The World and Euros are however elite events and there are players who want to take part and need the support of CS to do so: both in terms of a subsidy but also in terms of training, before and during the event. The latter is made much harder when there is a significant numbers of players who are there for the culture.

If you want to send your child (if you had one!) abroad for cultural reasons then do so but why expect CS to subsidize that experience? Is it fair on those that do want to go to these events primarily to play chess?

There are plenty of other more suitable events.

If my younger son wants to compete in the National Junior Champs in swimming he has to achieve certain times, and far from dividing the kids it really motivates them in training and they get great satisfaction when times are achieved.

younger juniors would lose interest.

Why? Juniors play chess because they love it. They enjoying seeing their grade rise. My proposal is that they are given the opportunity to hit the targets and to go to events appropriate to the level of chess they are both able and wanting to play.

There are many chances for girls to abroad to represent Scotland, and yet I don't see an increase in the number of girls playing (if anything the reverse).