Elite Junior Tournament Choice

For parents and kids choosing a chess tournament to enter, there are countless considerations - other commitments, cost and travel are among those; but this article disregards such external matters and focusses on the chess benefits to be had from different tournaments or sections. 

Among chess parents there are different views. Some want their child to have a realistic chance of winning tournaments they enter. Some want them to have a chance at "good chess". Some are focussed on earning rating points. Some want them to win prizes. Much of those preferences are formed in discussion with the chess kid, no doubt. However, they often seem to spill over into thoughts about what kids, more generally, should do; I remember a parent telling my child after they had won a lower section in a tournament that they (my kid) should enter a higher section next time. My eleven-year-old kid earned six wins and £100 and was happy to attempt to do so again in the same section next time. The nebulous concept of "better chess" didn't really appeal at that moment.

The end of this year saw an interesting opportunity to compare the outcomes of choices made by (or for) six children from among the elite of U12s in England.  Because these kids are already extremely successful in chess, I accept that the generalisability of the analysis may be limited. So maybe not so interesting to you!

The six kids concerned all qualified from among thousands of kids for the twelve places in the United Kingdom Chess Challenge's U12 Terafinal at Blenheim Palace in October 2023. Their performances in the Terafinal varied from coming third (seven and a half points out of eleven) to coming tenth (four points) and they represent the middle section of the twelve kids. Those final positions are not clear-cut indicators of relative strength: the kid who came tenth beat the kid who came fifth, for example, and the kid who came third lost to two of those below them.

For the purposes of this article I am treating them all as of approximately equal strength. So let's progress to their choices and their outcomes. All six entered six-round competitions taking place in Northwick Park at the end of the year. 

One entered the U16 section of the London Junior Chess Championship and won it outright. They won all six games and took home £200 and two attractive glass trophies to boot (I had the privilege of arbitrating the section and handing them their prizes at the end).  Only three of their opponents had FIDE ratings (average: 1363, below that of the child in question) so few FIDE points were won.

One entered the Major/U1940 FIDE section and won 4 games, lost one and drew one. They won a share of third place, probably £15. Their opponents averaged 1691 Elo with a range of 374 points between highest and lowest.

The other four all entered the Open section. Two of them only had 5 games. Outcomes varied but the oft-expressed idea that there's uniformly "better chess" in the section is not borne out completely by the evidence here - the chess level (as judged by opponent rating) depends on results.  The two kids who performed best in the Open section (actually the lowest two of these six in the Terafinal) had higher average opponents on average (1879 FIDE and 1910 FIDE) with a smaller range (387 and 267) than the two kids whose performances meant they moved up and down more dramatically in the Swiss-style tournament (1761 and 1710 FIDE with ranges of 658 and 509 respectively). The two best-performers in this tournament scored 4 out of 6 (including a default win for one) which would have felt like an extremely good outcome. As they were the kids with the lowest ELO, it was rewarded by lots of FIDE (and ECF) points but no cash or trophies.

Ultimately, outcomes cannot be predicted because performances fluctuate but I wonder with hindsight whether each child would have preferred the £200 and trophies over the hundred + ELO.

Find more Articles