Scholastic Chess

Running Chess Tournaments
21

The problem with your thesis is that the significant growth in the business enterprise is not in paid teachers, travel budgets, etc. for taking kids to tournaments. So your thesis doesn’t hold up.

The growth is in programs that provide training either off-site or at a school - but not as part of scholastic tournaments per se.

The programs are grounded in volunteers who may outsource the coaching. The reason really isfairness. Most coaches won’t win that trophy - yet they still care about that fairness.

No, it’s not. Even the HS which have places for the trophies typically stash the chess trophies away. I too had a basement full of trophies and eventually had to trash most of them after a flood. It’s easy for people to “blame” it on trophies cause it sounds good, but it actually has little if any basis in reality.

The organizational aspect of scholastic chess is largely done in a volunteer fashion although actual chess instruction may be outsourced. The chess instructors don’t want the trophies either, and frankly, they don’t need to the victories to successfully have a chess business. Many of the most successful businesses do little to teach chess - they are actually glorified baby-sitting services for kids who need before school or after school programs. These businesses are more successful because they are easier to scale - and they don’t have to pay as much for a chess instructor.

The notion that its primarily about money and chess trophies is just wrong.

22

Kevin, obviously you don’t get around much. It is not a thesis, it is a dirty little fact that rarely gets talked about. I have been to state and national tournaments as a coach and as a TD and witnessed the pressures put on kids to perform for their schools and by the by for their coaches. I have listened to coaches complain that there were not enough trophies. (I guess 1 in 3 kids getting one wasn’t good enough.) Why? Because his funded program needed to bring back something to show for the weekend effort of his group of kids. I have watched little kids brought to tears by a coach whose job depended on the success of the team. At a US Elementary, one little girl threw up on the board and had her school’s coach/mother(!) criticize her for her performance. Coaches were using hi powered binoculars and cameras with zoom lenses from a balcony area to check for alleged cheating by 6 year olds. Maybe in the idyllic paradise of Illinois that does not happen, but it is happening elsewhere. Scholastic chess is providing some characters a substantial income, one which they wish to protect at all costs. Chess is becoming more attuned to business interests. Even kids like to play for money. Do you really believe all adult coaches and programs to be pure of heart and mind?

Our club has taken kids to these tournaments. They compete for individual trophies. Occasionally, there is a trophy for a “club”. We have won a few of these, but do not emphasize or care that much. I will give you just one example from a state scholastic tournament a couple of years ago. In that tournament a coach from a school from the eastern part of the state was very concerned that our club’s kids might beat out his kids for individual honors. That would have affected his chances to win a school team trophy. He sent kids into the hall to scout our kids’ openings. One of our kids said there was some gamesmanship going on, some trash talking between rounds. The coach even had the nerve to come up to me to find out how we taught our kids, whether we followed certain methods. That coach needed to win a trophy badly. I told our kids to ignore it all and just play. In the end we won our share of games anyway. The openings they prepared for us were weak. The point is that scholastic chess has some of the same problems and competitive downsides that afflict all sports. You may close your eyes to them if you wish.

23

Even granting that this is true, I fail to see what your main point is. Would you have USCF allow a wider interpretation of the meaning of ‘school’ in order to combat this? Would you put an end to scholastic competition?

Your evidence strikes me very much as anecdotal. I’ve seen a couple of coaches that might be this way, but it’s not, in my experience, the norm by any means.

24

While you can make an argument about fairness for the “team” this does not apply to the individual. These are NOT
clubs, and if you keep incorrectly using the word “insulting” then it could just as easily be used by those who may
feel the same about the weekend schools they also attend. These are as valid of educational institutions as
those full-time public, home-school, and private.

Kevin, the main difference between our opinions is this: your primary focus is on the team, and mine on the individual player. Simple as that.

Rob Jones

25

Besides Mike’s excellent points, I get around just fine.

The point I’m making is that, as is often the case with noticeable observations, is that the “norm” gets ignored and the out-of-the-ordinary gets emphasized. I’m not saying what you are claiming doesn’t happen. I’m saying its relatively unimportant. Volunteer clubs (particularly in K-8) are the most important. They often outsource the teaching. “Funded programs” really aren’t the norm, and funded programs who are dependent upon trophies are not the norm. Even in many of the cases that are out there, I’ve spoken to those coaches and the response has been along the line of “It’s ok if I lose to you [a volunteer program] what hurts me is if I finish below my funded competitor.”

Yes, there are anecdotal stories. But go and talk to people BEYOND what people tend to gossip about and repeat. IL has two different approaches in K-8 and 9-12. Texas something else. Arizona something else. NY city something else. Wisconsin something else, etc. They all have their variants, and when you get into the variations a (the?) prominent variation going to national events are volunteer programs with some degree of outsourced instruction where money is raised and/or fees are charged to cover the costs.

A significant variation that is occurring now is the chess program that provides instructors to schools and that the school hires the instructor to come in from the program to work with parents or PTO. These programs are typically funded directly by parents - i.e. they charge $90 - $125 typically for an 8-ish to 12-ish week chess program (typically 10 week). Very often the program does not actually teach much in the way of chess, but is designed to make the kids fee good and be a baby sitting service. The quality of instructor can therefore be pretty low (often below class C) and the instructor can be inexpensive. This makes the program rather scalable from a business perspective, but other than saying that the school has a chess program it doesn’t provide much.

These programs don’t typically go to Nationals (which is more of an expense and difficult to scale across several schools) or even to local tournaments although parents might possibly decide to go. But the programs don’t push tournaments, so most parents probably don’t even hear about them.

26

First, my primary focus IS NOT on the team. My focus has always been on ALL aspects of YOUTH chess, be it TEAM SCHOLASTIC, TEAM YOUTH (club), INDIVIDUAL SCHOLASTIC, or INDIVIDUAL YOUTH. What my focus is on is to avoid confusing one with the other. Clubs ARE NOT schools. Schools are not clubs. They have different desires for their tournaments.

It IS insulting when you continually tell people that they believe something that they do not believe, as you have done here. It IS insulting when you characterize someone’s caring for a broad range of kids as nothing more than a hunt for trophies. This seems to stem from your refusal to listen to and consider any alternative other than what you have already decided things are.

My very first youth student was not part of a team - EVER. He eventually made it to four consecutive U.S. Junior (Invitational) Championships. He worked with me and two other top coaches in the country for several years. Just what “team” was part of my focus with that?

The rules about schools, Rob, are about FAIRNESS FOR TEAMS. If we are focused on individuals then those rules don’t matter because those rules apply only to what constitutes a team - individuals can always play in scholastic events. So your argument doesn’t even make sense.

Weekend schools or after-market schools are not the main school that someone attends. Common in my area for example, was for some of my players to be involved in Polish schools that had Saturday classes. Some of these schools wanted to form teams. Sorry, that’s not a school team. It’s essentially a club. What makes it a club is that the player has too much selection capability in who they would play for. That’s not fair to everyone else. The same sort of issues can arise with unregulated home school teams, or with after-market teams. If you allow that, Rob, then what would prevent me (for example) from setting up Kevin Bachler’s Chess School, and garnering all the good players I want, and then going around to tournaments and winning all the trophies I want? How would that be fair to everyone else?

And, BTW, wouldn’t this example be the real example of trophy hunting? Isn’t the example based on allowing what you propose the real example of people who are concerned about trophies? So the rules you berate are actually in place to prevent the situation you say you don’t want. Don’t you get that?

27

This is a fact of life–re, home-schools. And why not?? But this is NOT a “consequence of this battle to undermine
public schools”. Rather, the growth of these schools is a consequence of more and more public schools failing to
provide even, what many do consider, basic standards in education. Note, both of my kids were public education
schooled. But, during their education, we moved to ensure they attended the best public schools within the district.

This is not a new controversy by any means. Jim Dent wrote a book “Twelve Mighty Orphans” about a Masonic Orphanage in
Fort Worth, Texas, which for a 15 year period from the 20’s to the 40’s were most often in the playoffs, won consistent district
titles and even a state major HS championship. The school football program started with only 13 players, no footballs, poor
and obsolete equipment, often with no shoes or cleats, and yet had impressive winning records against far larger and better
equipped teams, with 40+ players. (The coach introduced a new-fangled idea called the spread, passing the ball around).
Opposition coaches said this small, underfunded orphanage had an advantage: The coach could define their diets, had access
to them, for the most part 24/7, and thus could have far more practices, pre-season, summer practices. Indeed, for the
orphanage, the “season” started in July.

This is a great example, for most of the alternative, after-market, and home-schools face close to some type of funding discrepancy
vs public schools. This is the primary disadvantage they must overcome.

Whatever the school type, and I have been a coach at about every imaginable level and type, there are usually significant challenges to face; and quite often having to deal with funding, finding school sponsors (either a teacher to co-host, or to
help pay the bills), facilities (some school principles are not on-board with chess, and off-site locations are necessary),
transportation to events, and many more.

That said, our primary focus, in my opinion though, should be on creating more opportunities for the individual payer. Expanding
USCF scholastic rules would seek to do just that.

Rob Jones

28

Would expanding club play not also do this, and potentially do it better? And without the potential for creating inequities in the scholastic system, too.

Michigan introduced a club championship (they called it a scholastic club championship, but that was perhaps more to indicate age restriction than anything else, since no school rules applied). It was immensely popular. They still have their traditional scholastic events as well, and also individual junior events.

You can expand individual opportunity without expanding the meaning of school.

29

There is no question that the increasing “money pool” does bias thinking of some coaches. There sometimes is a far greater concern
about individual or corporate profits rather than proper teaching approaches. Higher rated teachers, for example, are quite often
more expensive. How to cut costs?? Hire fewer of them. Yes, quality is quite often impacted, but the fact is this: most parents
really lack the ability to properly measure the quality of after-school programs, and most school administrations are happy as a lark
if the programs are well-attended, (meaning they get more $$$$ from the after-school providers). In addition, the bulk of the
students in these programs, generally have a casual interest in the game at best, an interest-level supported by their parents.
In some countries, chess is a major sport (such as India and Russia), but, is a background sport, if there is truly nothing else to
do, in most schools, and in the parent’s mindset in the USA.

In regard to the chess teaching professionals–chess in the schools, would be in large measure, dead, or at least at a much
lower level without them. Volunteers are EXTREMELY difficult to find. This is true whether the sport is youth soccer, football,
baseball, or whatever. For example, my excuses to the soccer league that I a. had never even watched a complete soccer game,
b. could not run, c. had no concept about the game or rules, did not rule me out as coach. I had a few qualifying factors–I could
hold at least one practice a week, agreed to attend a clinic, and could make most of the scheduled games.

I assure you, we are not that much different in chess in the schools. BUT, a key difference is that the materials and learning
resources are far greater now than ever before. Very many of the school coaches I have helped “along the way”, have ratings
U1000, or very little playing experience, at all. Sometimes the tournaments they hold provide resources that they can use
to hire the professionals to come in, at least for a period.

The point is this–there is a great need for both the professional and the volunteer. And the better degree to which they work
in harmony, the more youth chess flourishes.

Rob Jones

30

Bingo.

31

I have run across this with school principals. Some are “not-on-board” with chess. One principle told me that after her school won the district championship, that the trophies were taking up too much space that should be reserved for more important teams.
The principal also refused to even talk to parent’s groups about the school hosting a tournament. The principal is now elsewhere
employed.

Rob Jones

32

Kevin, EXCELLENT POINT-- a principal’s answer to the parents who demand a chess program, is to go tell the
new PE teacher that she is now the chess coach, and that chess class starts at 7am the next Weds morning.
Her knowledge of the game, or interest, is truly immaterial to the principal, for now he can claim that his school
too, has a chess program. (this example is from a specific school I helped as a volunteer last year, and provided
materials for). To date, this program has not produced much either in the way of a quality program, or top
district players–BUT, at least they a. Do have a program, which b. offers hope for the future. And this is the
point where many school programs actually are.

Rob Jones

33

Well, three of us showed up at the school at 3:30 yesterday to help with the chess club. Ten kids showed up all of whom knew the moves. For the first session, we just let them play and it was a bit chaotic. It’s painful to watch them make seemingly random moves as well as play with the pieces between moves. One child had more fun stacking the pieces on on the other than actually playing the game. None of them seemed to know how to actually finish a game. None of them seemed to take any time looking for threats.
One highlight. I showed one pair of young players how to take en passant. One of them had the deer in the headlights look, but the other one said, “Wow, I learned something today.” It was the high point of my visit.
They have a smart board and I think I’ll download some chess software for it and at least open the meetings with a few minutes of discussion of rules, elementary theory (move toward the center and not the edges, minor pieces out before Queens, etc.) I’m happy there are some kids who seem to like chess. I’ve yet to see how receptive they will be toward some instruction and discipline.

Richard

34

A few will be eager to learn. They are why we do what we do. The majority it seems usually are there to socialize and be with their buddies. In regard to chess discipline, this will take time to get the kids to play with principles. In
regard to classroom discipline–hopefully you have a parent volunteer for this, otherwise it could be a true headache,
as some parents with poor behavior kids always believe their kids are needlessly provoked, that they are truly sweet and innocent.

Rob Jones

35

I didn’t mean to imply that they were raucous. They were very well behaved. I meant chess discipline. We do have a very supportive parent at the meetings.

Richard

36

Aren’t these statements contradictory?

It’s pretty common to find that kids who think they know the rules of chess really don’t know all of them. Some common knowledge gaps:

  • en passant
  • castling (a few haven’t heard of it at all, some don’t know you can castle on either side, some don’t know that you can’t castle out of or through check)
  • promotion of pawns (some don’t realize that you can promote to a queen even if you still have your original queen)
  • draws (many probably won’t know all of the ways a draw can occur, but I even once met a couple of boys who didn’t even know a chess game could end in a draw!)

Keep in mind that many of the kids are primarily thinking about the immediate goal of beating their opponent in the game they’re currently playing rather than the long term goal of improving their playing ability so that they can beat more opponents in the future. They may think that there are “smart” people and “dumb” people, athletic people and unathletic people, talented people and untalented people, and that the best they can do is use whatever intelligence, athletic ability, and talent they happen to have to the best of their ability. So it’s a major breakthrough if you can get them to see that they don’t have to be content with their current chess-playing ability, but can actually improve it!

You’re also likely to find that many of them think of checkmate as something that can only happen when one player has taken all of his opponent’s pieces except the king. So they end up playing chess as though it were checkers!

Bob

37

Then you have a wonderful situation indeed. For usually, well behaved kids is a great sign, it is THEIR desire to
be there in that learning environment.

Rob Jones