+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: 2012 Olympiad (/thread-368.html)
Re: 2012 Olympiad - JRedpath - 31-08-2012
Completely agree, the current situation regarding who is eligible to become Scottish Champion
is a joke.
The title of Scottish Champion means nothing anymore.
Re: 2012 Olympiad - Craig Pritchett - 01-09-2012
Think this thread should really get back to its proper focus on the Olympiad!
But, in passing and in answer to George (not sure what point Joe is making): Jacob, certainly, is really in the position of having effective "dual nationality". I wouldn't mind a debate and perhaps a stricter view taken of how many years residency in Scotland might be necessary to qualify such a ("dual nationality") category of person to play for the Scot Champ title, but such folk as him are by adoption as "Scottish" in my book as anyone.
And what of our greatest ever champion, Captain MacKenzie ( a world top 5 or so player and potential world championship challenger in his prime)? He and other Scots emigrant global citizens were fiercely proud to be considered "Scoto-Americans". George's arguments were they in force would have disbarred that great player from playing in and winning the only Scots Championship he managed to play in (towards the very end of his life). He was also America's top player and an actual several times American champion. I think that's great. What's wrong with it?
Re: 2012 Olympiad - andyburnett - 01-09-2012
Quote:Anyone who thinks it's OK to have someone as our national champion who then sits down and plays for his true nation against Scotland just a few months later should hold there head in shame.
This part of George's post is certainly Olympiad related Craig.
There are arguments for and against inclusion of the Scottish champion automatically in the Olympiad team (Scotland's, not Denmark's!!). It can also be discussed what criteria are used to decide who is eligible for our national title/teams.
The main point here, however, is that Jacob playing against Scotland was not a great move. I personally find it disrespectful.
Re: 2012 Olympiad - Craig Pritchett - 01-09-2012
I also believe (and have long advocated) that the Scot Champion be offered a spot in the Olympiad team ... unless, of course, as in Jacob's case, he or she's opted under FIDE rules to play for his or her's "other" country - an ongoing debate for elsewehere.
On the main issue: I'm afraid I just don't understand this business of it being a case of "hanging down a head in shame" to permit a player (Jacob's a case in point again), who's as Scottish by adoption ("residence" suitably defined) as the rest of us to play for the full Scottish title.
The key issue here is whether FIDE (or perhaps ECU) has rules covering this sort of thing. Currently it looks 100% clear to me that FIDE / ECU are quite happy if a player in one country wins that country's national title (if suitably qualified by "residence"), yet plays for a second country (usually that player's "birth" country).
If FIDE / ECU were to change on that, I'd change CS rules accordingly. Those who want to disbar players like Jacob (who is only abiding by FIDE / ECU rules after all), should really first lobby FIDE / ECU to change their rules and seek to obtain a ruling that applies to all FIDE member countries.
Pester FIDE / ECU not CS in the first instance. Our rules are perfectly good and indeed exemplary in their national / international inclusiveness, just as they are. And, as a player, I don't find the slightest problem in Jacob playing for Denmark against Scotland. Nor do I think he should be concerned in the slightest about doing that. Like Tony Miles, I believe that unless the rules are actually being broken you should just play the little wooden things without whingeing.
Re: 2012 Olympiad - Patrick McGovern - 01-09-2012
Finally a voice of reason (well said Craig);
Quote:I believe that unless the rules are actually being broken you should just play the little wooden things without whingeing.
and if you really want to change things then turn up at AGM and use your influence/rhetoric/reasoning to effect change.
Anyone can be a keyboard critic :\
Re: 2012 Olympiad - Hugh Brechin - 01-09-2012
Looks like quite a tough day today - we'd be hoping to win this match but it looks like we'll need to take 2.5 from 3 close-ish positions on boards 2-4 to do so. (It's looking good for Keti, mind).
Re: 2012 Olympiad - Hugh Brechin - 01-09-2012
And she duly fires the equaliser.
Re: 2012 Olympiad - andyburnett - 01-09-2012
Patrick McGovern Wrote:Finally a voice of reason (well said Craig);
Quote:I believe that unless the rules are actually being broken you should just play the little wooden things without whingeing.
and if you really want to change things then turn up at AGM and use your influence/rhetoric/reasoning to effect change.
Anyone can be a keyboard critic :\
Just because you agree with Craig doesn't mean that his is the only reasonable voice in this debate - having a different opinion IS acceptable; I understand Craig's viewpoint, accept much of it, but disagree with his overall view on this subject.
Attending/discussing some (or at least) of these matters was the plan for the AGM until Andy Muir rather put his foot in it and got all uber-nationalistic and scared his own supporters off! =o
And you're right, anyone CAN be a keyboard critic, yourself included Pat. Did you raise the issue of our International Director's 'politically-influenced motion' at the AGM or was that just keyboard criticism? (If you did them I'l obviously look like a fool
)I still feel Jacob shouldn't have turned out against Scotland. The rules are only that - they don't always accommodate or reflect common sense/decency etc.
Re: 2012 Olympiad - Calum MacQueen - 01-09-2012
John kept him out. 2.5-1.5 win for the gang.
Re: 2012 Olympiad - Patrick McGovern - 01-09-2012
Hi Andy B
Quote:Did you raise the issue of our International Director's 'politically-influenced motion
Why would i raise it? It was on the agenda and discussed albeit in a minimal way by those who wished to discuss it. Anything more on the issue, e.g. being political, would not have been appropriate as a] there was a full agenda and b] the gentleman concerned was not there to put forward his point of view.
=)