What exactly do the ICU do anymore?

Retd.LoyolaCpt

The ICU (or at least their PRO) are threatening not to rate Galway Rapid 2015. They have already refused to rate the National Club Championships - the organisation of which falls mainly on them. It seems they are committed to alienating tournament organisers who are essentially the lifeblood of Irish Chess. Have they considered the endgame of this little tantrum/tirade they seem to wish to engage in?

1. A scenario where we have a few tournaments a year, run and rated by the ICU themselves (didn't go well in the NCC apparently); where other tournaments are run totally outside of their authority. Can't imagine that flying with members who'd like to play rated games.

2. A scenario where they are forced to run 20 tournaments a year and spend their entire budget and more on such endeavors - just to keep their members appeased that they'll have some games rated.

3. Their committee is ignored until they are voted out and replaced by a committee who can reverse/fix the issues they've created or a rival union is created which would actually cater to the needs of its members and tournament organisers. See: the Ulster Chess Union.

cdeb

Have to say the LCU seem far more important than the ICU in recent times.

And individual clubs are more important than the LCU.

brilliantboy

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

3. Their committee is ignored until they are voted out and replaced by a committee who can reverse/fix the issues they've created or a rival union is created which would actually cater to the needs of its members and tournament organisers.

Be careful what you wish for.
We don't want to end up in a situation where we have two competing executives both packed to the rafters with loons

cdeb

Didn't John Alfred already set up a rival chess union?

Sparks

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Have they considered the endgame of this little tantrum/tirade they seem to wish to engage in?
...

You forgot:
4. Online play becomes even more attractive to busy people who aren't impressed with all the childish melodrama. Given that you can get FIDE rated already in online play bypassing the ICU completely and for less money than an ICU membership, and given the quality of what's on sites like chess.com for new players, OTB with the drama and actual physical assault on minors is just not competitive...

reunion

brilliantboy wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for.
We don't want to end up in a situation where we have two competing executives both packed to the rafters with loons

The icu is recognised by FIDE and no other organisation will be recognised for FIDE tournaments and correspondence in Ireland. That's the only reason the icu still exists and splinter groups fail.

reunion

The icu is relevant but people center around one issue and think that's the only thing they do.

The executive in control seem to be at odds with tournaments which is essential to every member.

Members can tolerate in fighting about something that doesn't affect them provided the basic functions work...

Tychoo

cdeb wrote: »

Didn't John Alfred already set up a rival chess union?

Hows that going for him?????

cdeb

Depends if you ask him or if you ask anyone else I guess.

reunion

Tychoo wrote: »

Hows that going for him?????

It's odd... His organisation is free to join but has a treasurer... and to be a member you have to pay something (it says it in the constitution) which means it's not free.

They also state that the organisation will cease to exist in 2018.


I can see why he would be frustrated with the ICU. The ICU basically ignores school and university level chess entirely. So he probably needs to appear to have more authority when organising a national school championship.

reunion

The ICU also goes on Today FM about a discussion of if Chess should be included into the Olympics.

Pat made some points but ultimately his point about Chess taking as much energy as playing tennis (which isn't true) caused Anton Savage to drop chess and talk about chess-boxing instead. It also seemed like Anton was mocking the possibility of chess being in the Olympics rather than having a genuine discussion.

RQ_ennis_chess

I thought Pat spoke quite well, certainly in terms of promoting chess. I didn't get the sense that Anton was mocking the idea of chess being included in the Olympics. To me he sounded sceptical, which is fair enough.

Pats arguments for chess being a sport were a bit weak though. I dont think that there is much scientific research done on this area, Helmut Pfleger did research in the 70s which showed that elite chessplayers showed similar physiological reactions to competitors in sports in the light athletics class such as golf and shooting. This doesn't mean that chessplayers expended the same amount of energy as those competitors though and I dont think there is any research to show that chessplayers expend the same amount of energy as tennis players during a match. I don't see how that could be true. Making statements like that kind of damages the whole argument in the first place especially when talking to people who are already sceptical.

Having said that Kevin O Connell quotes two unnamed sportsmen, one a top 50 Chilean tennis player (I dont know who this is) and the other a Norwegian soccer player (this must be Simen Agdestein who was a Norwegian international soccer player and chess grandmaster) and says that both indicated chess was the harder game physically. I'm not sure either of these claims would stand up to serious scrutiny though!

reunion

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

I thought Pat spoke quite well, certainly in terms of promoting chess. I didn't get the sense that Anton was mocking the idea of chess being included in the Olympics. To me he sounded sceptical, which is fair enough.

He did sound sceptical which was fine as most people would be. But I think once Pat mentioned chess = tennis in terms of energy spent, scepticism changed to mockery. I don't think he even discussed chess (And just chess alone) again for the rest of the segment. He just talked about chess boxing briefly and left it.

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Pats arguments for chess being a sport were a bit weak though. I dont think that there is much scientific research done on this area, Helmut Pfleger did research in the 70s which showed that elite chessplayers showed similar physiological reactions to competitors in sports in the light athletics class such as golf and shooting. This doesn't mean that chessplayers expended the same amount of energy as those competitors though and I dont think there is any research to show that chessplayers expend the same amount of energy as tennis players during a match. I don't see how that could be true. Making statements like that kind of damages the whole argument in the first place especially when talking to people who are already sceptical.

Chess being similar to Golf/darts/shooting, that is plausible. I'm not aware on any research into chess but I would have figured that FIDE would have a team dedicated to improving the knowledge of the benefits of chess and potential report as to why chess should be in the Olympics. I know there was a push nearly 10 years ago to make chess a sport, surely the ICU has documents relating to why from then?

Why do we even want chess in the Olympics? It seems with the Chess in Schools we are nearly also arguing chess should be a subject rather than one of the items in PE.


In terms of the interview, Pats arguements for chess as a sport could/should have mentioned the drive 10 years ago and that other nations in Europe recognise it as a sport. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to create a report on the icu website outlining the reasons why chess is a sport and why it should be included in the olympics

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Why do we even want chess in the Olympics?

Because it would make Irish sports council recognition effectively mandatory and thereby the ICU would qualify for grants to help run things?


(though with the current state of affairs that might be a rather thorny rose -- although if the ICU enforced their requirements for NGBs, it would help a lot with the current state of affairs)

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Because it would make Irish sports council recognition effectively mandatory and thereby the ICU would qualify for grants to help run things?


(though with the current state of affairs that might be a rather thorny rose -- although if the ICU enforced their requirements for NGBs, it would help a lot with the current state of affairs)

I dislike the attitude of people that Irish Sports Council will listen to a petition and grant chess money. Why do people think recognition as a sport suddenly equates to money? Chess IS recognised as a sport by the Olympic committee and we meet the definition of a sport as per the Irish Sports Council Act of 1999.

The Irish Sports Council act of 1999 wrote:

“competitive sport” means all forms of physical activity which, through organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and at obtaining improved results in competition at all levels;

As Chess is a form of physical activity it would meet the competitive definition (certainly the recreational sport definition) - albeit to some debate on what all forms actually means.

We need to be recognised as a NGB for chess by the Irish Sports Council. No minister or any government body is going to ignore established procedure because we can't function to the basics offered by the Irish Sports Council.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

I dislike the attitude of people that Irish Sports Council will listen to a petition and grant chess money.

Not what I was suggesting - because the ISC just won't do that on the basis of a petition. Were it an event in the games (as opposed to having official sport status from the IOC), then that would be actual pressure on them to recognise the ICU as a sports NGB. There's a walk from there to grant aid, and the ICU would have to shake itself out and do things in a more organised fashion than it does now, however.

Why do people think recognition as a sport suddenly equates to money?

It doesn't; but the ISC recognition is technically more of the NGB than the sport itself; and without that recognition, official funding is effectively impossible at the national level.

We need to be recognised as a NGB for chess by the Irish Sports Council. No minister or any government body is going to ignore established procedure because we can't function to the basics offered by the Irish Sports Council.

Yup.
But.
Not only would the ICU have to get itself into shape (and even completely ignoring the current noise and focussing purely on the structure, the ICU does not meet the ISC's criteria, and if it put in the work to come up to those criteria, the resulting structure would mean a lot less noise in the future and a more robust framework for the sport); you still have to push the ISC a bit by lobbying.

And that's what I was saying being in the games would assist with.
From the point of view of Irish players, whether or not it got onto the Games wouldn't have anything to do with them, it'd happen pretty much as an external event; but if it did (and honestly I don't think it will until there's a massive sea change in the Olympics, probably triggered by a massive loss of TV rights funding), then Irish Chess would benefit from it.

Oh, and you're wrong about the Minister ignoring procedure - pretty much every single Minister for Sport in the last twenty years has ignored procedure for things like the sports capital grant system, to the point where it's become a running joke that the best sports facilities in the country in every sport are in the constituency of someone who's held that office.

TL;DR: We're not going to see it happen, we're too small to make it happen, but if it did happen, it'd be very helpful but not sufficient in and of itself.

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Not what I was suggesting - because the ISC just won't do that on the basis of a petition. Were it an event in the games (as opposed to having official sport status from the IOC), then that would be actual pressure on them to recognise the ICU as a sports NGB. There's a walk from there to grant aid, and the ICU would have to shake itself out and do things in a more organised fashion than it does now, however.

It doesn't; but the ISC recognition is technically more of the NGB than the sport itself; and without that recognition, official funding is effectively impossible at the national level.

I know it's not what you were suggesting, it's just what people have been suggesting over the years (including when they were doing the petition).

Sparks wrote: »

Yup.
But.
Not only would the ICU have to get itself into shape (and even completely ignoring the current noise and focussing purely on the structure, the ICU does not meet the ISC's criteria, and if it put in the work to come up to those criteria, the resulting structure would mean a lot less noise in the future and a more robust framework for the sport); you still have to push the ISC a bit by lobbying.

And that's what I was saying being in the games would assist with.
From the point of view of Irish players, whether or not it got onto the Games wouldn't have anything to do with them, it'd happen pretty much as an external event; but if it did (and honestly I don't think it will until there's a massive sea change in the Olympics, probably triggered by a massive loss of TV rights funding), then Irish Chess would benefit from it.

Oh, and you're wrong about the Minister ignoring procedure - pretty much every single Minister for Sport in the last twenty years has ignored procedure for things like the sports capital grant system, to the point where it's become a running joke that the best sports facilities in the country in every sport are in the constituency of someone who's held that office.

TL;DR: We're not going to see it happen, we're too small to make it happen, but if it did happen, it'd be very helpful but not sufficient in and of itself.

We aren't too small. I'm certain we outscale the Tug of War Association. We certainly have more clubs. Keep in mind we have ~1,000 paid members per year. We have many more who can play unrated rapidplays or in schools, universities or in the community games. We just neglect school kids, university students and youths that don't represent Ireland.

We petitioned for Chess to be a sport in 2005 but we didn't submit any application for the ICU to be the NGB. You could understand a petition if the ISC refused chess due to them not classifying it as a sport. The Minister can not force the Irish Sports Council to fund any particular sport. The Minister may have different funds allocated for different projects. These are separate.

http://trueslant.com/daviddisalvo/2010/04/27/when-is-work-really-work wrote:

In his book, “Why Zebra’s Don’t Get Ulcers”, neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky references a study showing that chess masters, playing full days of chess during tournaments, burn 6000-7000 calories a day—similar to the level burned by Olympic athletes in training.

But it should be noted that you don't burn fat and that this has been misquoted. The book actually said that the metabolic demands on our bodies begin to approach those of athletes during the peak of a competitive event. Clearly someone misquoted and added numbers.

Darts burns about 100 calories in 40 minutes. I think chess would be larger but similar to that ratio.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

I know it's not what you were suggesting, it's just what people have been suggesting over the years (including when they were doing the petition).

Oh. Wow. People actually tried that? Er. I mean, didn't anyone think to ask literally anyone else who'd ever worked with the ISC what the odds of that working were?

We aren't too small. I'm certain we outscale the Tug of War Association.

And the baton-twirlers. But the numbers don't matter so much as the structures in place. Toiletgate, for example, would currently sink an application because the ISC would demand proof that it would be prevented from happening again.

We certainly have more clubs.

Oh, and the distribution of the clubs matters as well, it has to be as widespread as possible. Though in fairness, that's one aspect that might already be up to spec.

We petitioned for Chess to be a sport in 2005 but we didn't submit any application for the ICU to be the NGB.

...what?
(And I can't imagine the ISC's reaction being much different)

The Minister can not force the Irish Sports Council to fund any particular sport.

Not if he's caught doing it on the front pages, but in practice, as the Phoenix has built its entire business model on reporting, it happens all the time, and for the grants with the real money, the Minister's department manages the pursestrings as much as possible, and even in cases where grant applications processes are well-developed and applications that don't make it above a set threshold score aren't supposed to be considered, you find a that applications from the Minister's constituency that don't make the threshold have in the past been mysteriously selected for heavy funding.

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Oh. Wow. People actually tried that? Er. I mean, didn't anyone think to ask literally anyone else who'd ever worked with the ISC what the odds of that working were?

I think the thinking of the time was - The country has loads of money give us some.

Sparks wrote: »

And the baton-twirlers. But the numbers don't matter so much as the structures in place. Toiletgate, for example, would currently sink an application because the ISC would demand proof that it would be prevented from happening again.

Toiletgate is a stupid term for it. It wasn't even related to anything political or any coverup.

There are procedures in place with a recommended arbiter to player ratio. I believe the ISC would be looking to ensure that the probability of it happening again is low to non-existant. You can't eradicate it completely without screening for mental health issues and anger issues of participants.

Sparks wrote: »

Not if he's caught doing it on the front pages, but in practice, as the Phoenix has built its entire business model on reporting, it happens all the time, and for the grants with the real money, the Minister's department manages the pursestrings as much as possible, and even in cases where grant applications processes are well-developed and applications that don't make it above a set threshold score aren't supposed to be considered, you find a that applications from the Minister's constituency that don't make the threshold have in the past been mysteriously selected for heavy funding.

This is a poor attitude and an attitude I see with so many people. We won't get as much funding as GAA and GAA will always get funding. But if we play ball, we can get something. Once we get something, we can argue for something more.

I also find people assume with money suddenly comes plans on how to spend it and not squander it. Usually you need to approach people with plans for the money you are asking for. A generic coaching kids and get a grandmaster doesn't work. Without a plan, you'll have some people wanting larger prize funds to get players playing which helps no one.

We need plans on what to do with any potential funding - we could probably get donations from a rich previous member or actually look for sponsorship.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

There are procedures in place with a recommended arbiter to player ratio. I believe the ISC would be looking to ensure that the probability of it happening again is low to non-existant. You can't eradicate it completely without screening for mental health issues and anger issues of participants.

Wouldn't stop them bringing it up, especially with the context of the ISC Code of Ethics and Good Practice for Children's Sport in Ireland.

This is a poor attitude and an attitude I see with so many people. We won't get as much funding as GAA and GAA will always get funding.

It's not about the sport so much as the geography; and the point wasn't that you couldn't get funding but that Ministers do not always stick to the established rules and procedures (but you can be sure that if there was any will to not promote chess, every rule and procedure would suddenly be carved in stone. A fair system it is not).

I also find people assume with money suddenly comes plans on how to spend it and not squander it.

Yup. And with the ISC especially, it always goes the other way round. Even in the cases where the evaluation of the plans was... lacking.

We need plans on what to do with any potential funding - we could probably get donations from a rich previous member or actually look for sponsorship.

You'd probably find that that was a more hassle-free mechanism as well.

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

You'd probably find that that was a more hassle-free mechanism as well.

Maybe, it depends. Sponsorship and donations aren't exactly guaranteed income streams which make it difficult to generate a budget projection.

I think it would only encourage an increase in prize-funds or once off expenditures which sees no returns on investment to the vast majority of players.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Maybe, it depends. Sponsorship and donations aren't exactly guaranteed income streams which make it difficult to generate a budget projection.

True, but neither are grants from the ISC (and don't forget, whatever you get from the ISC, you immediately lose over a thousand euro or so of it in mandatory accounts auditing fees).
Realistically, the ISC recognition is useful for some core grant aid, but far more useful for other services and things like capital grants and for the overall rigor it brings to the structures and setup of the NGB itself.

I think it would only encourage an increase in prize-funds or once off expenditures which sees no returns on investment to the vast majority of players.

I'm not sure those are permitted under ISC rules for core funding...

RQ_ennis_chess

Just checking back in on this thread and I have some questions based on the debate so far (interesting btw!)

Does anyone really think that chess being included in the Olympic Games would make a big difference to the ISC in terms of the recognition of chess as a sport?

Chess is already recognised as a sport in over 100 countries worldwide and is recognised as a sport by the Olympic council, do you think the ISC feel any pressure currently to recognise chess as a sport? I would say not at all and chess being included in the Olympics wouldn’t magically change that. If that were to happen there might be a short term opportunity for the ICU in terms of publicity (something they probably couldn’t capitalise on anyway) but that’s about it. The reality is that the ISC are not under any pressure to recognise chess as a sport because hardly anybody really cares about that. What might make a difference (eventually) is a sustained and consistent lobbying effort by the ICU. That would probably involve first of all drawing up an evidence based position paper properly outlining the arguments for recognising chess as a sport.

Where is this idea that chess players burn tons of calories during a game coming from?

Can someone please post a link to a study that shows that ? My admittedly limited understanding of the research is that there are similarities between elite chess players and competitors in more physical activities on some physiological measures. That doesn’t equate to chess players burning the same amount of calories during a match as a tennis player FFS how could they? Maybe someone can post a link to a paper?

How would chess being recognised as a sport not help funding wise?

I cant see how this wouldnt be an improvement on the current situation in terms of securing funding for chess, maybe I am missing something?

reunion

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Does anyone really think that chess being included in the Olympic Games would make a big difference to the ISC in terms of the recognition of chess as a sport?

Well I don't. The ISC will still mandate us to follow their rules for applying for funding. It also wouldn't change their view on what defines a sport which is what we have to do. FIDE's problem is getting chess in the Olympics, it shouldn't be and isn't the ICUs.

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Chess is already recognised as a sport in over 100 countries worldwide and is recognised as a sport by the Olympic council, do you think the ISC feel any pressure currently to recognise chess as a sport? I would say not at all and chess being included in the Olympics wouldn’t magically change that. If that were to happen there might be a short term opportunity for the ICU in terms of publicity (something they probably couldn’t capitalise on anyway) but that’s about it. The reality is that the ISC are not under any pressure to recognise chess as a sport because hardly anybody really cares about that. What might make a difference (eventually) is a sustained and consistent lobbying effort by the ICU. That would probably involve first of all drawing up an evidence based position paper properly outlining the arguments for recognising chess as a sport.

I'd be happy to work on such a report but again, the ICU would have to follow the rules the ISC have created for funding. Has there been any official statement that they deny chess is a sport? There isn't because the ICU has never submitted to being a NGB. Once we do that, the ISC is forced to rule on chess, then we can appeal with our evidence and public support. We can't say they don't consider us a sport if we have never even applied. If we met the criteria and they rejected us, we might have a case. No minster or TD is going to suggest making a special case for chess not to follow the basic rules agreed to by many other activities.

Even for university level chess they never say they don't recognise chess as a sport, they say the ICU isn't the NGB recognised by the ISC. It's pretty clear the ICU should aim to be the NGB for chess in Ireland recognised by the ISC. You could then argue that University Chess is within the remit of Student Sport (a body under the ISC (I think)) which you could then argue would make it defacto recognition as a sport.

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Where is this idea that chess players burn tons of calories during a game coming from?

Can someone please post a link to a study that shows that ? My admittedly limited understanding of the research is that there are similarities between elite chess players and competitors in more physical activities on some physiological measures. That doesn’t equate to chess players burning the same amount of calories during a match as a tennis player FFS how could they? Maybe someone can post a link to a paper?

"Why Zebras don't get ulcers" is the book that references the following studies which monitored chess players pre-tournament, during and after tournament values for breathing, blood pressure, muscle contraction and so on. You can read the snippet on google books (or at least I could)

Leedy, Charlotte Adelaide. The effects of tournament chess playing on selected physiological responses of individuals varying in level of aspiration and skill. 1975.

Leedy, C., and L. Dubeck. "Physiological changes during tournament chess." Chess Live and Review 26 (1971): 708.

Gleĭzerov, V. I., and E. B. Sobol. "[Hygienic evaluation of the changes in work capacity of young chess players during training]." Gigiena i sanitariia 6 (1987): 24-26.

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

How would chess being recognised as a sport not help funding wise?

I cant see how this wouldnt be an improvement on the current situation in terms of securing funding for chess, maybe I am missing something?

Well this is the thing, if chess was suddenly a sport in the morning, we wouldn't suddenly qualify for grants but we could possibly apply for them. So the question of is chess a sport doesn't enter the equation because we (in terms of the ISC) aren't a functioning body and aren't the NGB for chess. So if chess was a sport, we would be an amateur body that couldn't meet the requirements for recognition.

Once they recognise a NGB, they can enter into meaningful discussions about what a sport is.

Keep in mind, the ICU claims jurisdiction over the entire isle of Ireland so we can apply to both the Northern Sports Council and the Republic.

RQ_ennis_chess

reunion wrote: »

Even for university level chess they never say they don't recognise chess as a sport, they say the ICU isn't the NGB recognised by the ISC. It's pretty clear the ICU should aim to be the NGB for chess in Ireland recognised by the ISC. You could then argue that University Chess is within the remit of Student Sport (a body under the ISC (I think)) which you could then argue would make it defacto recognition as a sport.

If you read the ISC's response to the submission made by Eamonn Pitts years back, they do say that they do not recognise chess as a sport because of the lack of a physical element, you can read the original submission here https://www.icu.ie/articles/8, the ISCs reponse was also on the ICU site at some stage though I cant find it right now, probably it is still there somewhere but you might have to do a bit of searching.

reunion wrote: »

"Why Zebras don't get ulcers" is the book that references the following studies which monitored chess players pre-tournament, during and after tournament values for breathing, blood pressure, muscle contraction and so on. You can read the snippet on google books (or at least I could)

Leedy, Charlotte Adelaide. The effects of tournament chess playing on selected physiological responses of individuals varying in level of aspiration and skill. 1975.

Leedy, C., and L. Dubeck. "Physiological changes during tournament chess." Chess Live and Review 26 (1971): 708.

Gleĭzerov, V. I., and E. B. Sobol. "[Hygienic evaluation of the changes in work capacity of young chess players during training]." Gigiena i sanitariia 6 (1987): 24-26.

Just took a quick look at that snippet now and really it just talks about chessplayers showing elevated physiological responses on some measures during chess games i.e. chessplayers show changes in some physiological measures similar to those of athletes in the light athletics class. Its not just these papers that show that, there are others. I dont see anything though that references caloric expenditure during chessgames, which surely cant be that high.

The body burns energy when consuming oxygen so unless someone has shown elevated oxygen consumption during chess games I dont think there is any basis to talk about chessplayers burning lots of energy during games. To go on national radio and say that there are studies showing that chessplayers burn as much energy as tennis players is just wrong. There is an argument to be made that chess is a sport but its difficult enough to get it taken seriously without making statements like that.

reunion wrote: »

Well this is the thing, if chess was suddenly a sport in the morning, we wouldn't suddenly qualify for grants but we could possibly apply for them. So the question of is chess a sport doesn't enter the equation because we (in terms of the ISC) aren't a functioning body and aren't the NGB for chess. So if chess was a sport, we would be an amateur body that couldn't meet the requirements for recognition.

Once they recognise a NGB, they can enter into meaningful discussions about what a sport is.

Keep in mind, the ICU claims jurisdiction over the entire isle of Ireland so we can apply to both the Northern Sports Council and the Republic.

Well obviously chess being recognised as a sport in Ireland wouldn't mean that there would be a sudden influx of money to the game here straight away but it would open an important potential source of funding, one thats currently closed off.