12-09-2017, 06:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2017, 07:07 PM by andyburnett.)
So, back on track and no harm done...I'll try to answer everything asked of me specifically, although work has to take priority so responses might be slow at times.
@Walter et al.
This change is not a wholesale change - it is one aspect, albeit an important one, of the criteria used to govern international team selection. There has been a huge amount of discussion about it and...no consensus. Part of my role as ID is to make certain decisions on such matters, and I didn't pull this one out of my...nether regions (Moderator post noted also Ian!)
So, passing it by the AGM for a member-wide vote is always a possibility, but I didn't/don't see how it makes a huge impact on the wider membership? Of course, you can argue that every single change made to any aspect of chess in Scotland has an impact on 'the wider membership' but in that case we don't need directors at all. Just put everything up for a vote and go with the result.
As to the question highly inactive vs highly active, for someone to gain international honours I believe 'highly active (a very relative term) should be the default, 'highly inactive' should be way down the list if it's on it at all and 'inactive' should be automatically excluded. Representing Scotland should be the main aim, or one of the main aims, of every strong player in the country - and if their focus isn't on that but rather on playing occasional games as and when their life allows, then why should international honours be bestowed upon that person?
@ Andrew
In the 'Keti what if' scenario, what would happen is that we would do what we did before Keti made herself available for the women's team, and what we will do when/if she decides to retire from competitive play, or what we would do if she was somehow otherwise unavailable - we would put out our best team comprised of those who want to play, have fulfilled all the criteria - and I am sure they would represent our country to the best of their abilities and be proud of the opportunity. However, Keti is a consummate professional in the chess world and I have no doubt that she'll fulfill whatever criteria are required - so I really don't see this 'argument' as particularly valid or important, sorry.
@Matt
There are a huge number of countries who use a set 'minimum game' criteria for selection, so this is not some random idea with no basis behind it. The selectors will still have a free hand to compare and discuss and decide from those players who have met the criteria - just as they do at the moment.
@Craig
If Scotland's goal was to win or achieve such a high position as would make a huge difference to the game in this country I might be swayed by your argument, but it's simply not the case. Please take a look back at the Olympiad results from 2000 onwards as I have done and tell me what are Scotland hoping to achieve at the Olympiad? I believe the focus should be on trying to outperform seeding, offering double-norm opportunities to our strongest active players, providing a platform and experience for those dedicated to the game, etcc.
If we followed the logic of your argument to its natural end, we could simply waive any and all criteria for our top rated players, and get them to play - at the expense of those who are actively supporting chess, actively participating, actively aiming for international honours, etc.
Ok, I need to take a break now
I'm back...
So, offer some ways to tweak the criteria without changing the basic premise that a certain minimum number of games will be required and see what we get...
Ideas I've had, as have others:
-Extend the period/rules to somehow include the Scottish (I'm in touch with Alex McF about the Scottish element already)
-Implement a 'commitment to play Scottish' element prior to the Olympiad/Euros (including those games to reach the minimum)
-Offer an Easter event for those who think they won't make the minimum. Say, 2 weekends at ECC, 4 games.
-Change the minimum number (although 15 would be my own choice of absolute minimum per 6 months)
Any others?
@Walter et al.
This change is not a wholesale change - it is one aspect, albeit an important one, of the criteria used to govern international team selection. There has been a huge amount of discussion about it and...no consensus. Part of my role as ID is to make certain decisions on such matters, and I didn't pull this one out of my...nether regions (Moderator post noted also Ian!)
So, passing it by the AGM for a member-wide vote is always a possibility, but I didn't/don't see how it makes a huge impact on the wider membership? Of course, you can argue that every single change made to any aspect of chess in Scotland has an impact on 'the wider membership' but in that case we don't need directors at all. Just put everything up for a vote and go with the result.
As to the question highly inactive vs highly active, for someone to gain international honours I believe 'highly active (a very relative term) should be the default, 'highly inactive' should be way down the list if it's on it at all and 'inactive' should be automatically excluded. Representing Scotland should be the main aim, or one of the main aims, of every strong player in the country - and if their focus isn't on that but rather on playing occasional games as and when their life allows, then why should international honours be bestowed upon that person?
@ Andrew
In the 'Keti what if' scenario, what would happen is that we would do what we did before Keti made herself available for the women's team, and what we will do when/if she decides to retire from competitive play, or what we would do if she was somehow otherwise unavailable - we would put out our best team comprised of those who want to play, have fulfilled all the criteria - and I am sure they would represent our country to the best of their abilities and be proud of the opportunity. However, Keti is a consummate professional in the chess world and I have no doubt that she'll fulfill whatever criteria are required - so I really don't see this 'argument' as particularly valid or important, sorry.
@Matt
There are a huge number of countries who use a set 'minimum game' criteria for selection, so this is not some random idea with no basis behind it. The selectors will still have a free hand to compare and discuss and decide from those players who have met the criteria - just as they do at the moment.
@Craig
If Scotland's goal was to win or achieve such a high position as would make a huge difference to the game in this country I might be swayed by your argument, but it's simply not the case. Please take a look back at the Olympiad results from 2000 onwards as I have done and tell me what are Scotland hoping to achieve at the Olympiad? I believe the focus should be on trying to outperform seeding, offering double-norm opportunities to our strongest active players, providing a platform and experience for those dedicated to the game, etcc.
If we followed the logic of your argument to its natural end, we could simply waive any and all criteria for our top rated players, and get them to play - at the expense of those who are actively supporting chess, actively participating, actively aiming for international honours, etc.
Ok, I need to take a break now
I'm back...
So, offer some ways to tweak the criteria without changing the basic premise that a certain minimum number of games will be required and see what we get...
Ideas I've had, as have others:
-Extend the period/rules to somehow include the Scottish (I'm in touch with Alex McF about the Scottish element already)
-Implement a 'commitment to play Scottish' element prior to the Olympiad/Euros (including those games to reach the minimum)
-Offer an Easter event for those who think they won't make the minimum. Say, 2 weekends at ECC, 4 games.
-Change the minimum number (although 15 would be my own choice of absolute minimum per 6 months)
Any others?