Correct support for The Scotland Junior International Squad

[Angus McDonald]

What is wrong with the word 'barrier' ?

It explains what a grading limit is. i.e. hurdle, something to get over!!

[Angus McDonald]

I have learnt that when I feel very strongly about something it usually means there are other motives at work.... I wonder what they could be?]

Please enlighten me, I check my motivation on a daily basis. I try to make it as altruistic as possible. Are you suggeting I have a bad motivation?

[Adam Bremner]

I stated previously that it was exactly because my name was mentioned that I wouldn't comment on it. I don't believe that would be the right thing to do. For what it is worth, I think the coaching structure in place currently is working very well, as can be seen by the kids coming through.

Again, I am fully behind every junior selected. I will not call someone's idea ridiculous, but continue to support those who are going to things. We have great crop of players at the moment, so I am looking forward to seeing them in action at Euroyouth.

[David Deary]

As for a correct time to discuss it, yeah people are probably right. Perhaps now isn't right, but that doesn't mean it should be swept under a carpet.

Not sure if this was directed at me. I wasn't suggesting we sweep it under the carpet but rather why not discuss it in person at a meeting. (Even, the AGM? or after if its too late to add it to the Agenda?) Its evident from the opinions and posts on here that we all care about junior chess so lets channel all this energy on the forum into the good of developing our juniors.

Perhaps it is the wrong time to be discussing this, mainly because people lose ALL sense of objectivity when discussing family and chess. And as usual the people who shout the loudest have the strongest opinions and use others to back up their statements. It is rarely useful to have such strong opinions about anything. I have learnt that when I feel very strongly about something it usually means there are other motives at work.... I wonder what they could be?
Oh and please, let's dispose of terms like 'barrier'....

Admin maybe you could move this thread so as not to detract from the important funding thread.

Alan, I introduced the word barrier into the debate as a 2100 requirement would be that. It just doesn't strike me as aspirational. What word would you prefer?

The rest of your post I am not going to respond to as I think it was tongue in cheek to elicit a reaction.

[Hugh Brechin]

I've been trying to steer clear of this one, partly because in a week and a half I'm going to Prague with the European Youth squad, all of whom I am convinced will acquit themselves well, and partly because I've got a week and two days to write most of a dissertation. Nevertheless, some thoughts, in an unconnected and random order:

Jamie didn't say Adam was one of only three juniors worthy of support, he said that he was one of the top three under 20s in the live list. (Although Adam could possibly have pointed out that he no longer counts as a junior in the new grading year!)

I'm inclined to think that the 2100 rating barrier singled out is probably a bit on the high side: Angus, I'd say you're definitely right to argue that someone shouldn't need to be quite that high up the all-time juniors list to merit international selection. I don't think we should abandon the idea altogether though - as someone else said some time ago (Clement, I think), it'd definitely be daft sending a 500 to the under-18s if a freak of age-group distribution meant they were our best player. If we agree on that, then we're really just haggling over price (I do love that joke). I still believe that whether a player is selected should be a function of their strength rather than the strength of their peer-group: a 1400 who has three 1700s ahead of him is just as worthy of selection as a 1400 who is at the top of a weaker age-group.

I do think it's interesting that it's consistently the higher-rated players who are suggesting that grading limits (we could start using the phrase 'grading guidelines', which might be a fairer reflection of what people are talking about) should be used. You can interpret that either as deriving from elitist arrogance or a better understanding of what leads to improvement in chess, I suppose, but it's worth noting.

A key point about any rating ceiling is that the selectors are and will remain human beings who can choose to admit promising and clearly improving juniors whose numerical grades fall slightly short of any barrier that might look like preventing them from being selected. I don't think anyone's suggesting a hard, no-exceptions limit (and if they are, I would strongly disagree with them).

Yeah, these threads take a walk sometimes, but I don't think this is a particularly big deal. The forum isn't busy enough for this to be seriously confusing, and we're still talking about junior-squad-related issues. If the moderators have a problem with it, then it can be split up, but it started out as Angus's thread and he's still participating, so I don't think it's a problem. That said, it would be nice to have a thread where we did just talk about ways to gain funding, cause that's fairly important.

Andy - I don't know how Mike's going to give you examples of players who haven't improved without naming any names! I broadly agree with Alan's line on this: most players have improved, often significantly, but this is likely to be at least in part because a) they're young and improving anyway and b) they're being immersed in chess for a week and a half, which will obviously help.

I remember how terrific it was being (infrequently!) selected to play chess for Scotland, and it undeniably acts as an excellent motivator for our juniors. Whatever the policy on events like the European and World Youth, we should ensure that plenty of these youngsters have the chance to represent their country. But I really do think it might be a good idea for us to revisit the idea of sending development squads to tournaments like the British, the Czech Open and other large tournaments (others are far more knowledgeable than I am about the options out there) where most of the benefits (working with coaches, time spent immersed in the game, representing the country) can be replicated and we can possibly have the chance to aim for higher scores. Nobody's suggesting stopping people playing for their country, but the big, elite events need not be the only game in town.

I've never actually been to a European or World Youth before, so my opinions will be less wildly uninformed after the Prague event, to which I am very much looking forward!

Back to Tanzanian politics...

[Adam Bremner]

Adam Bremner wrote:As for a correct time to discuss it, yeah people are probably right. Perhaps now isn't right, but that doesn't mean it should be swept under a carpet.



Not sure if this was directed at me. I wasn't suggesting we sweep it under the carpet but rather why not discuss it in person at a meeting. (Even, the AGM? or after if its too late to add it to the Agenda?) Its evident from the opinions and posts on here that we all care about junior chess so lets channel all this energy on the forum into the good of developing our juniors.

Not directed at you at all, in fact I agree with that. The only thing with an AGM, is I know I will not be there, as will several people on either side of a debate. Online seems about the only place where everyone gets their view. If the issue with this is people are unhappy juniors can view it, then is it possible to lock a thread to anyone but members of the forum?

[Angus McDonald]

Hugh,

There is a lot of reason in your post.

Allthough I think that anyone who is the best in their country at any junior age group who have parents who wish them to compete should be allowed to go. Indeed I think a federation would find it difficult to stop them especially since FIDE would accept their entry. Would the federation stand in their way? and why would they wish to? Absolutely no need for grade limits in such a situation. Being the best Scot at that agegroup is sufficient qualification in my opinion. If we get to a position of strength where we have 10 competing for 3 places at each agegroup then this will naturally push the grades up in my opinion. Internal competition for these 3 places would see people challenging higher.
The system we have at present with organisers trying to create more opportunities and increase the coaching base is the best one.
Ultimately a pluralistic approach involving as many of the talents as possible will drive up standards, create more joy in playing and put Scotland on the Chess map.
Steps have been taken in the last few years to make that happen. I don't see any need to change tack other than getting the funding sorted out!

[Calum MacQueen]

People put far too much emphasis on these international tournaments. It's understandable why: world championships and all the glory that comes with competing in that. But the fact is these tournaments are one 1) incredibly tough 2) not the most efficient way to improve, by a long shot.

Rating "barriers" do make a lot of sense. There is little point of sending a player if they're just going to struggle the whole way through. Equally, the case if the second highest rated player in an age group can be competetive we should send them as well. Rating limits deal with this and can be adjusted according to last year's competition (eg. about 7/10s of the way down the list?). Before anyone tells me I'm not supporting the juniors or such, I am. I just want a squad that can be competetive.

I was always number 2 to Andrew Green through the years and as the Euros clashed with school I only went to one individual event. And now I'm the highest rated (currently, Sreeves seems to be in decent nick) of my generation. Worlds and Euros aren't the only tournaments that exist and there can be far more appropriate ways to encourage juniors. In fact, Jonathon Hawkins (GM elect) has never played a tournament outside Britain!
Other events like the Czech open, British, Cessinatico ect. still mean juniors can play abroad against different players but get more competetive games. And often coaches go to these as well which will benefit juniors.

This is NOT an attack on the squad going to the Euros nor any other team we've sent in the past, just a suggestion of how to improve the system.

Calum

[Mike Scott]

Why not do that. Show me who has not benefited from going to the Euros (please don't use names as that would be just wrong). You will find they are very much in the minority

Andy,
I am not suggesting that players do not learn anything at all rather it is not an effective or efficient method on its own.

A simple look at the grading lists and the list of players that have attended these events does not suggest sending players has produced significant numbers of significantly better players - nor even more motivated (based on those that stop playing).

I think the current approach to ensure that the younger juniors are all getting coached is spot on and hopefully will ensure that players that attend these events in future are better equipped not just to learn the lessons on offer but to hand out a few as well!

[Mike Scott]

Angus,

Ultimately a pluralistic approach involving as many of the talents as possible will drive up standards, create more joy in playing and put Scotland on the Chess map.

I would agree with getting more players involved but not at these tough events. The reality, as I observed it when I traveled with Jonny, was that it was very hard to build and maintain a squad spirit / focus when a significant number of the squad were struggling to get points on the boards.