MetroWest Chess Club’s Summer Scholastic Program Matures in its Third Year

By Alan Hodge, TD

MetroWest Chess Club

www.MetroWestChess.org

MCC’s summer scholastic program has become well established in Natick, playing host in its third edition to 54 players from June 20 through August 25, 2002. Like last year, the format for 2002 offered two G/30 games per night, with three six-round, Swiss tournaments held consecutively over nine weeks. As a grand finale, this year we added a bonus, four-round Swiss, played on a Sunday afternoon, exclusively for summer program participants.

While the chief objective of the summer program has always been to encourage broad participation without putting a spotlight on any individual players, there are a few players who merit a particular mention for their performance. Eight-year-old Winber Xu had an outstanding summer, playing in the Open section in all three Thursday tournaments even though he began as one of the lowest-rated players in that section. After scoring only 3.0 points in Tournament 1, Winber scored 5.0 and 5.5 respectively in Tournaments 2 and 3, to finish with an overall high score of 13.5 (out of a possible 18). Max Abugov (still 9 when the summer program ended) scored a perfect 6.0 in the U900 section of Tournament 1, then graduated to the Open section, where he scored 3.5 and 3.5 to finish with a total of 13.0. In one of the more exciting games of the summer, Winber and Max played each other to a draw in the climactic round 6 of Tournament 3. Playing all summer in the middle section (sometimes U900, sometimes U700), Travis Nilsson also compiled a total score of 13.5; while in the U500 section Colin Stanfill scored a total of 12.0. Hats off to these players, not only for their fine results but also for their dedicated attendance.

Tournament 4, the Sunday afternoon tournament, was the only event in which trophies were offered, and it attracted 22 players in three sections. Those winning trophies were:

	Open Section	Under 800 Section	Under 500 Section
First Place:	Anabel Bacon	Michael Bottini	Colin Stanfill
Second Place:	Andrew Wang	Evan Rea	Brian Tingley
Third Place:	Scott Thomas	Sam Rabe	Sasha Parfenov
Under 1000 Class Trophy:	Max Abugov
Under 900 Class Trophy:	Taha Shafa
Under 400 Class Trophy:			Lucian Wang
Under 300 Class Trophy:			Sean Ahern
Top Girl Finisher:			Aviva Siegel
Girl Runner-Up:			Clara Wang

Reflections on Three Years

The three-year history of the summer program may be indicative of trends in the broader world of scholastic chess and gives rise to a few observations. (For a look at the previous years’ programs, see the articles in Chess Horizons for September 2000 and December 2001.)

Growth and turnover: Scholastic chess continues to attract numerous new players. MCC witnessed dramatic growth from 2000 (27) to 2001 (54). Because we expected similar growth in 2002, we moved the summer program to Thursday nights to avoid interference with MCC’s regular Tuesday night tournaments. In one sense, the expected growth materialized: for 29 players the 2002 summer program was their first. Yet the total number of participants was 54, exactly the same of last year’s, because only 25 of the players who participated in 2001 returned in 2002. Only five players have played all three summers. So while the good news is that chess continues to attract new players, the bad news is that it appears to be losing experienced players almost as fast, and many players’ involvement in the game is of short duration or sporadic.

Bridging the skill-level gap: The summer program has always appealed most strongly to novice players. The U500 section was the only one consistently populated sufficiently for a healthy Swiss tournament. Several issues present challenges for higher sections, including an increasing number of activities competing for players’ time and attention as they get older, a perceived lack of improvement in playing strength that leads players to lose their enthusiasm for chess, and, ironically, real improvement in playing strength that makes unattractive both a G/30 time control and the level of competition typical of a scholastic tournament. With respect to this last point, some quite young players make the leap to “adult tournaments” while more are simply choosier about what tournaments they play in. In any case, offering a “scholastic” format that serves well the needs of young players in the roughly 900 to 1300 rating range is a real challenge.

Prizes: The whole topic of prizes in scholastic tournaments has been the subject of much debate, and what I offer here is explicitly a personal view. The three summer programs to date have seen a variety of prize structures, none of them really satisfactory. In 2002 we aimed at a structure that would both “spread the wealth” — give everyone a pretty easy shot at winning one or two prizes — and include a fairly hefty prize to recognize truly exceptional performance. First, the positives.

· Medals were awarded to all players who played on three or more dates and appeared to be well received. These were more a token or memento of participation than a prize as such, with 50 of 54 participants getting one. While this goes far toward ensuring that “everyone wins something,” coming up with distinct prizes/mementos each year will be difficult, while offering the same medals (or whatever) repeatedly would likely discount their value to the players.

· Other prizes included a year’s membership in MACA (for scoring four or more points cumulatively out of a total of 18 possible points) and free entry into Tournament 4 (for scoring nine or more points) , both conceived to be incentives to encourage kids to play more chess. Whether these prizes had or will have the intended effect, however, is a matter for speculation.

Now for the negatives.

· A $50 cash prize was offered with a very high bar, 14 points out of 18. This bar was not set with the intention that no one would win it, but it does reflect the organizer’s ambivalence about having a cash prize at all. Despite (not because of) the fact that three players came quite close to winning it (13.5, 13.5 and 13.0), it is now my considered opinion that cash prizes should not be offered in scholastic tournaments. I would opt for lower entry fees, if the program is intended only to be self-sustaining, or to use the income to enhance the scholastic chess program otherwise as opportunity allows.

· Trophies were offered only in Tournament 4, but the sections were too small for a really differentiating competition, making the awarding of trophies complicated and to a degree arbitrary. Moreover, although six girl’s trophies were on offer, four were not awarded for lack of contestants. In my opinion trophies, if not eliminated altogether, should be limited to the top three places per section in “major” tournaments, and only in the expectation that every section will be well populated. In any case, there should be no girls’ trophies.

In sum, I have come to the conclusion that prizes are a tail wagging the dog (or at least threatening to do so). If our objective, collectively as chess organizers and sponsors, is to foster a love of the game in young players, why compromise that love before it is well planted by a nearly ubiquitous distraction of prizes and (greatly devalued) trophies? We owe the kids more than that. I for one believe that the huge majority will still come and play, prizes or no prizes — for the love of the game.