(15-09-2017, 10:07 AM)Matthew Turner Wrote: Andy, 
I think this is relatively simple.  Walter is trying to get the strongest possible team to represent Scotland at the next Olympiad.  You are effectively trying to get the strongest possible team in ten years time.  I think it is important that people recognise that distinction and understand that those noble aims are often in conflict.  I hope people see the sense in your argument.

(15-09-2017, 12:01 PM)WBuchanan Wrote: Andy B you say

"I appreciate the thought which has gone into your post...but...inactivity will not result in international honours! To be honest, and without wishing to offend you or anyone else, I don't even know where the idea of such a thing comes from :/
 
If someone is inactive, they don't get a spot. If they want to represent Scotland, put in a bit of effort and hit the targets. If that's not possible or desirable, aim for next time."

How does any of this relate to my post?  
 
Having received many constructive suggestions from experienced selectors (and players), you expressed worry about the lack of detailed responses. My post was meant to address this - as many had asked for selectors hands not to be tied by fixed thresholds.
 
If you just look a little more closely, inactivity IS addressed in the framework I suggested. For example, you could even adjust inactive players downwards by 50 points per inactive year (five times the average level of deterioration, if the figure attributed to Dougie Bryson is reasonable) and it wouldn't be long before a top inactive player was out-they would probably only get in once before being overtaken by the more active players.
 
[I admit my "with the advantage conferred by greater activity " was open to other interpretations - sorry, I just meant "without the disadvantage conferred by inactivity"].

You also say

Errr, I disagree with almost everything. Sorry Walter :/ Does anyone else have thoughts on Walter's idea? Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be an arcane way of not making any progress and still 'rewarding' players for not playing - I just don't see how this helps Scottish chess or our international progress.

I'm a bit disappointed that you are so quick to dismiss the detail you asked for, Andy. How do you arrive at the conclusion that in the framework I suggested, players are rewarded by not playing? When in fact I've suggested a deduction (for deterioration) plus a penalty (to 'benefit' Scottish Chess) and indicated you can increase both!
 
Perhaps you could read it again in the light of my further explanation above? To repeat, simply increasing the percentage deduction for inactivity increases the extent to which that inactivity drags down the (estimate of) the player's effective playing strength. This framework will certainly edge them out of the team in time, leaving the parameters to be determined.
 
The advantage of a percentage deduction over your proposed blanket scenario is that the process of choosing the number allows it to be reasoned to reflect stated or unstated objectives.
 
Here is one illustration. In your scenario, a player could be completely inactive for five years and then play for 6 months and get in the team, to the exclusion of an equally strong player who has been very active the whole time but just fell short of the high target in recent games. Any sensible deduction for inactivity would prevent this.
 
Cheers
Walter

(15-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: Walter,
There is a selection committee to select the team.  They can use their judgement on what is important, hopefully they will not just select the highest rated players, otherwise there is really no point having a selection committee.  One would hope that the selectors would factor in how active a player had been and inactivity would count against candidates.  Therefore, what you are suggesting already happens.  Do selectors penalise inactivity more or less than you are suggesting? I simply don't know.

(15-09-2017, 03:24 PM)WBuchanan Wrote:

(15-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: Walter,
There is a selection committee to select the team.  They can use their judgement on what is important, hopefully they will not just select the highest rated players, otherwise there is really no point having a selection committee.  One would hope that the selectors would factor in how active a player had been and inactivity would count against candidates.  Therefore, what you are suggesting already happens.  Do selectors penalise inactivity more or less than you are suggesting? I simply don't know.

Matthew, what AndyB is suggesting does not already happen, and has met opposition here from selectors and experienced other people. He expressly asked for acceptable tweaks. What I am suggesting puts common ground between selectors and AndyB, unless his true position is that he is going ahead with the absolute requirements regardless of views - in which case it's this discussion that is pointless!
Cheers

(15-09-2017, 03:34 PM)andyburnett Wrote:

(15-09-2017, 03:24 PM)WBuchanan Wrote:

(15-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: Walter,
There is a selection committee to select the team.  They can use their judgement on what is important, hopefully they will not just select the highest rated players, otherwise there is really no point having a selection committee.  One would hope that the selectors would factor in how active a player had been and inactivity would count against candidates.  Therefore, what you are suggesting already happens.  Do selectors penalise inactivity more or less than you are suggesting? I simply don't know.

Matthew, what AndyB is suggesting does not already happen, and has met opposition here from selectors and experienced other people. He expressly asked for acceptable tweaks. What I am suggesting puts common ground between selectors and AndyB, unless his true position is that he is going ahead with the absolute requirements regardless of views - in which case it's this discussion that is pointless!
Cheers

Walter, Unless I'm much mistaken Matt is saying that what YOU are proposing already happens to some extent - not what I am proposing!

I asked for tweaks, not a completely separate set of rules. For example, is 8/15 FIDE-rated games sensible? Too many? Not enough? Should it be 15 games and let the selectors decide which are more important, FIDE or CS or whatever? These are 'tweaks'

And just to reiterate, I have had plenty of support from 'experienced other people' - only 1 former selector, Craig, has commented on this specifically so far, admittedly strongly against my plans.

(15-09-2017, 04:13 PM)WBuchanan Wrote:

(15-09-2017, 03:34 PM)andyburnett Wrote:

(15-09-2017, 03:24 PM)WBuchanan Wrote:

(15-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: Walter,
There is a selection committee to select the team.  They can use their judgement on what is important, hopefully they will not just select the highest rated players, otherwise there is really no point having a selection committee.  One would hope that the selectors would factor in how active a player had been and inactivity would count against candidates.  Therefore, what you are suggesting already happens.  Do selectors penalise inactivity more or less than you are suggesting? I simply don't know.

Matthew, what AndyB is suggesting does not already happen, and has met opposition here from selectors and experienced other people. He expressly asked for acceptable tweaks. What I am suggesting puts common ground between selectors and AndyB, unless his true position is that he is going ahead with the absolute requirements regardless of views - in which case it's this discussion that is pointless!
Cheers

Walter, Unless I'm much mistaken Matt is saying that what YOU are proposing already happens to some extent - not what I am proposing!

I asked for tweaks, not a completely separate set of rules. For example, is 8/15 FIDE-rated games sensible? Too many? Not enough? Should it be 15 games and let the selectors decide which are more important, FIDE or CS or whatever? These are 'tweaks'

And just to reiterate, I have had plenty of support from 'experienced other people' - only 1 former selector, Craig, has commented on this specifically so far, admittedly strongly against my plans.

Hi AndyB
 
Yes, what I am proposing does already happen in part - as noted, my suggestion was intended to include your proposal too and make it less 'straighjacketing' on selectors as some had suggested. It also avoids some obvious anomalies that arise from the definition being is too rigid (as opposed to being set at a harsh level or not).
 
Thanks for replying. I was busy trying to answer this:
 
"You are proposing a system of 'deductions for inactivity' and I responded with 'inactivity will not result in international honours' - I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about that :/
 
I am not tying the selectors hands at all - I am stating the criteria required for selection - the selectors then decide the team from those available, in much the same way as they do now."
 
So, 15 games, 8 Fide, 'stated' and selectors expected to work within it?
 
Now you are saying this:
 
"I asked for tweaks, not a completely separate set of rules. For example, is 8/15 FIDE-rated games sensible? Too many? Not enough? Should it be 15 games and let the selectors decide which are more important, FIDE or CS or whatever? These are 'tweaks' [img=32x17]file:///C:\Users\tosh\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif[/img]"
 
Should it be 15 games...up for discussion and tweaking.
 
Which is it? For most of the discussion it's seemed you were open to suggestions of a lower minimum.
 
I don't mind which, but it would be good to clear it up.
 
I don't understand how if it's the latter (ie a lower minimum than 15 games might be set), you don't consider my suggestion is a tweak - you asked for details! A predetermined percentage reduction is not difficult!

Cheers
Walter