(11-09-2017, 01:10 PM)andyburnett Wrote: Hi all, Thanks for the responses - I'll try to answer them in order and as best I can.
'This will penalise those players who don't have an income'. (Andy Muir)
Hi Andy, Having been in this position myself I understand your concern, but chess is one of the cheapest 'hobbies' out there in financial terms. The 15 game requirement translates to a league commitment and 2 FIDE-rated weekenders, for example: the '8 FIDE-rated games' rather than 9 was chosen to allow for Friday night byes, There may also be funds available for those in need through Friends of Chess, which I myself accessed and which paid for a 9-round FIDE-rated event. Others I know have also been granted funds in this way. I also worked 3 jobs in the run-up to my 'FM travels' in order to fund it. Not easy, but if chess is important to you, you'll find a way.
'Also the selection deadline date is unknown' (Andy Muir)
Andy, It is not unknown - it just hasn't been published yet. There will be at least 6 clear months between publishing it and the deadline'
'Does this mean (presumably it does) that a top player who is slightly short of the 15 games in six months will not be considered, even if the next highest player who meets the requirement was much lower rated, eg 2000?' - (Walter Buchanan)
Hi Walter, the number is 15 (not 11 or 14) for a number of reasons: a) It means everyone knows in advance what is required b) It is half of the 30 games required for ratings to be statistically worthwhile, c) There is no need for selectors to judge whether a player has played regularly enough or not to be selected and d) Hamish answered that one I think
'One can imagine all sorts of reasons why a player might genuinely be unable to play 8 FIDE rated games in a six month period. I would suggest that you write the selection criteria in more general terms' (Matt Turner)
Hi Matt, This is true. Money troubles, health problems, new child, etc etc. Unfortunately, life gets in the way of chess sometimes - but it is no different to any other pursuit. I would say to this that the person should then focus on the next 'cycle'.
Hi Andy, your various answers didn't actually address my question (neither did Hamish as I'm sure you know
) - the top player even with 14 games would not be considered? Or maybe you have answered it indirectly:
"Just one point I'd like to make away from any detailed discussion of the issue: Nobody should just walk into any current Scottish team on the basis of historic results, rating or commitment to chess in Scotland"
That's not so much a 'point', as a 'point of view' !? Some have already disagreed with it as regards playing strength.
We've just had an AGM - why was no motion put forward so that the members views on such a drastic change (which will likley have knock-on effects on the rest of chess in Scotland) could be taken on board?
Perhaps I have that answer too
...though If you'd just added activity as a criteria within certain parameters (eg make up a formula, so that it wasn't absolute) there probably wouldn't have been much argument. October 1st you say...there's still tlme to slacken the requirement, of course - have you put the hammer and chisel away yet !?
Cheers
PS just adding an edit as I've just noticed Andrew Greet's last post - I have to say I think his point is a strong one. Any change that in practice means someone is automatically excluded who outgrades the other competitors by as much as Keti does in the womens' team, must be considered a bit drastic to be decided just like that by a committee.