+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria (/thread-1735.html)
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - Jim Webster - 11-09-2017
George Neave said: "That being said, I have always liked the idea that the current Scottish Champ should get a spot in the Olympiad team."
On a personal point, is this is only a reward for the current Scottish Champion on alternate years?
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - andyburnett - 11-09-2017
HI all,
I have a lot of work/writing to do today so I'll probably not reply at length until this evening. 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.
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - Matthew Turner - 11-09-2017
(11-09-2017, 01:10 PM)andyburnett Wrote: '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'.
Andy,
Thank you for responding to our comments. I appreciate that 'hard cases make bad law' but let me give you an example. A player is unable to play over the board chess because they are caring for a relative. However, they keep their hand in with a combination of online matches, correspondence chess and tactics primers. Should the rules be such that the selection committee is preventing from selecting them?
Matt
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - Andrew Greet - 11-09-2017
(11-09-2017, 03:06 PM)andyburnett Wrote: Nobody should just walk into any current Scottish team on the basis of historic results, rating or commitment to chess in Scotland.
If Keti is available to play in the Scottish women's team, she should just walk in; there's simply no intelligent argument to the contrary.
The fact that this new ruling even allows for the possibility of Keti not being selected for the women's team should be all that's needed to determine that it's a terrible idea.
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - andyburnett - 11-09-2017
(11-09-2017, 03:55 PM)Andrew Greet Wrote:(11-09-2017, 03:06 PM)andyburnett Wrote: Nobody should just walk into any current Scottish team on the basis of historic results, rating or commitment to chess in Scotland.
If Keti is available to play in the Scottish women's team, she should just walk in; there's simply no intelligent argument to the contrary.
The fact that this new ruling even allows for the possibility of Keti not being selected for the women's team should be all that's needed to determine that it's a terrible idea.
Hi Andrew, I'd like to keep this debate as civil as possible! Just because you disagree with something does not mean there are no 'intelligent' arguments to the contrary.
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - WBuchanan - 11-09-2017
(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.
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - Andrew Greet - 11-09-2017
(11-09-2017, 04:02 PM)andyburnett Wrote:(11-09-2017, 03:55 PM)Andrew Greet Wrote:(11-09-2017, 03:06 PM)andyburnett Wrote: Nobody should just walk into any current Scottish team on the basis of historic results, rating or commitment to chess in Scotland.
If Keti is available to play in the Scottish women's team, she should just walk in; there's simply no intelligent argument to the contrary.
The fact that this new ruling even allows for the possibility of Keti not being selected for the women's team should be all that's needed to determine that it's a terrible idea.
Hi Andrew, I'd like to keep this debate as civil as possible! Just because you disagree with something does not mean there are no 'intelligent' arguments to the contrary.
Okay, so I stated my opinion quite strongly but you've taken an incredibly drastic step Andy. Your rule could potentially lead to the exclusion of some of our strongest players, so you should expect to be challenged on this matter.
So, with all due respect and civility, I'd like to know why you think it's justifiable to allow any scenario in which Keti could be excluded from the women's team. I leave you with the current top 10 list of Scottish female players, taken from the FIDE website.
# Name Title Fed Rating G B-Year
1 Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan g SCO 2369 9 1968
2 Bamber, Elaine wf SCO 2102 0 1983
3 Groves, Carey wf SCO 1934 0 1962
4 Roy, Ali SCO 1914 0 1995
5 Giulian, Rosemary A SCO 1892 0 1964
6 Durno, Joy wf SCO 1873 0 1965
7 Espinosa Cancino, Monica SCO 1708 0 2000
8 Rutherford, Kathleen SCO 1707 0 1989
9 Macgilchrist, Siegrun SCO 1677 0 1945
10 Lampard, Alice SCO 1639 0 1996
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - andyburnett - 11-09-2017
(11-09-2017, 04:32 PM)Andrew Greet Wrote:(11-09-2017, 04:02 PM)andyburnett Wrote:(11-09-2017, 03:55 PM)Andrew Greet Wrote:(11-09-2017, 03:06 PM)andyburnett Wrote: Nobody should just walk into any current Scottish team on the basis of historic results, rating or commitment to chess in Scotland.
If Keti is available to play in the Scottish women's team, she should just walk in; there's simply no intelligent argument to the contrary.
The fact that this new ruling even allows for the possibility of Keti not being selected for the women's team should be all that's needed to determine that it's a terrible idea.
Hi Andrew, I'd like to keep this debate as civil as possible! Just because you disagree with something does not mean there are no 'intelligent' arguments to the contrary.
Okay, so I stated my opinion quite strongly but you've taken an incredibly drastic step Andy. Your rule could potentially lead to the exclusion of some of our strongest players, so you should expect to be challenged on this matter.
So, with all due respect and civility, I'd like to know why you think it's justifiable to allow any scenario in which Keti could be excluded from the women's team. I leave you with the current top 10 list of Scottish female players, taken from the FIDE website.
# Name Title Fed Rating G B-Year
1 Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan g SCO 2369 9 1968
2 Bamber, Elaine wf SCO 2102 0 1983
3 Groves, Carey wf SCO 1934 0 1962
4 Roy, Ali SCO 1914 0 1995
5 Giulian, Rosemary A SCO 1892 0 1964
6 Durno, Joy wf SCO 1873 0 1965
7 Espinosa Cancino, Monica SCO 1708 0 2000
8 Rutherford, Kathleen SCO 1707 0 1989
9 Macgilchrist, Siegrun SCO 1677 0 1945
10 Lampard, Alice SCO 1639 0 1996
Hi Andrew, I fully expected to be challenged on the matter - no problem with that at all
Firstly, I don't believe that Scottish teams should be focusing on only ever putting out their 'elo strongest' team aiming for as high a position as possible. Within reason, I believe we should be aiming to exceed our seeding in events such as the Olympiad, as well as allowing players the chance to achieve norms and experience strong international team events. This is where growth comes from, and over the last few years we haven't seen enough of that.
Secondly, if players are inactive they are a) Much less likely to perform to their rating and b) Are not showing the commitment to chess which international honours should reward, again within reason. There may be many reasons for this, but again...walking into a team should not be a given.
The criteria are not onerous for any serious player, and as with any other sport or field of endeavour, being unable to play for whatever reason is almost always going to result in missing out on things.
I don't like using specific personal examples, such as those 'what ifs' of Keti or Jonathan that you've raised so far. I'd love to see all of our strongest players actively playing chess and competing for Scotland. If they don't, or can't, then so be it. As International Director I have to play the cards I am being dealt and do what I feel is best for chess in Scotland.
I am happy to consider/reconsider details over the next few weeks. For example one suggestion that we have a rating floor for international selection (for example 2300 Open team, 1700 female team) Should there be too few players who meet the new criteria, then the selectors can allow those who haven't played enough games to be considered. This in effect would still afford a 'decent' international level of representation and also give hope to those unable or unwilling to play more often, as well as spur on those on the edge of international level chess.
Likewise including the Scottish in the mix, although the dates for that make them problematic - either 1 months out of date by the time of the Olympiad/Euros or too close to allow for the 'logistics' of the event.
These discussions have been ongoing (on and off) for a long time now, hence my making a decision, but I am always willing to reconsider/tweak things and I do really appreciate anyone who comes forward with comments/suggestions/constructive criticism.
I would, however, also like to hear from those who this might be most likely to affect (not in a 'what if' way!) such as Andy Muir's comment earlier.
Andy B.
(11-09-2017, 03:12 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote:(11-09-2017, 01:10 PM)andyburnett Wrote: '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'.
Andy,
Thank you for responding to our comments. I appreciate that 'hard cases make bad law' but let me give you an example. A player is unable to play over the board chess because they are caring for a relative. However, they keep their hand in with a combination of online matches, correspondence chess and tactics primers. Should the rules be such that the selection committee is preventing from selecting them?
Matt
Hi Matt,
As I mentioned in a reply to Andrew Greet, there are so many what ifs that it's impossible to cover them all - and you'll perhaps argue this is where flexibility comes in, but then the selectors have to consider what is and what isn't a decent 'what if' and what isn't in reality -and then the system doesn't do what it was intended to do!
In answer to this specific 'what if', if you have been unable to play because of these circumstances, that's truly unfortunate - but there will always be the following year's event to aim for. It's the same result as having a horrible season and losing lots of elo and not being in the mix for selection: you have to hope the situation, whatever it may be, improves.
(11-09-2017, 04:05 PM)WBuchanan Wrote:(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
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
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.
Hi Walter,
Not sure what difference there is between 'point' and 'point of view' in this scenario - as I am ID, and after discussions and thought, I make the policy after passing it by various CS officials (usually President and Exec) for their thoughts and input re: policy.
The fact that several people may disagree doesn't mean that others don't agree. If there were to be an AGM vote on every aspect of the work I and others do in our roles it would be ridiculous. Ultimately, if the things I do are hugely unpopular or detrimental to chess in Scotland, I'll be voted out of office!
The 'Keti what if' argument to me is a red herring - highly inactive players are just that, although their presence could still be very useful as a coach/non-playing captain. Experience counts for a lot.
Anyway, as I wrote in my reply to Andrew, nothing is set in stone until it is! So there is time left to tweak it if need be, but I would have to be convinced that it needs tweaking - as of yet I'm unconvinced by most of the arguments put forward.
All the best,
Andy
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - robin moore - 11-09-2017
Andy B,
May I suggest a "special circumstance" in terms of selection. Many of our top players have a FIDE trainer title. International junior squads need a coach with that qualification for us to utilise the funding provided by pinnacle event organisers such as the World and Euroyouth. If a top player (like Keti eg) who possesses that Fide qualification supports our junior squad abroad then that must be seen as helping to improve the overall standard of Scottish chess and should be looked on favourably particularly if that player misses out on playing Fide rated events at home while acting as our national junior coach.
RE: Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria - AndrewGreen - 11-09-2017
I think this is a positive step forward.
I want to see our top players playing more regularly. 15 games is not a lot and I would tie it into Scottish events if the player is residing within Scotland.
Ask many of our juniors who Scotland's top players are and they do not know. This doesn't seem right.