Posts: 383
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Hi Dougie and all the CWP members...
It does seem ridiculous – but that’s what people have been asking about, Dougie. You yourself said
“That's right. Once you have obtained a SCO code you have eligibility”.
Jim too was relaxed, saying CS would deal with it.
You say:
“You either have to fulfil the bloodline or residency criteria. These are listed at 16.1.1 and 16.1.2. Then you get a SCO code.”
That’s not literally correct though. The back reference from 16.2 is to 16.1 – which says “at least one of the requirements” - one being the residency, one being the bloodline and the other being the ‘SCO’ code.
At present the ‘have parent or grandparent' clause is a red herring. It could say
‘have parent or own swimming pool’
or
‘have parent or recent bus-ticket’.
It would make NO difference to the literal meaning, because only ONE criterion needs to be met, and that can be the ‘SCO’ code!
Even if you say it’s ridiculous, CS officials (or future ones, perhaps) could still do it. Surely it’s best not to have ridiculous things enshrined (great word, George!) to begin with? Perhaps that's a question better put to Jim.
The motion I want to submit and posted earlier (that will reflect this realization with a small alteration) should make the parent/grandparent (whatever the CS members vote for) explicit, ditto for the residency.However, I’ve been reluctant to submit it as it's embedded within constitutional wording that looks like it may change. This is also relevant to Derek’s question.
Question to the CWP: Does all this not suggest that the meeting must be open to motions that are suggested following changes to the constitution that become evident at the meeting, or that have left insufficient time?
Cheers
Walter
Posts: 163
Threads: 13
Joined: Sep 2011
It is not according to the constitution though Douglas. The only eligibility that the constitution deals with is with who is able to compete for a Scottish individual national title or is able to represent Scotland in any international competition, not who is eligible for registation as SCO. The fact that in practise the criteria used is in 16.1.1 and 16.1.2 is not the same as saying it is part of the constitution.
Posts: 218
Threads: 56
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
I think I'll leave further comments here to Alastair White. I wasn't on the CWP but was involved in correspondence with the group.
One of the possibilities mentioned by AW was to have an additional section at 16 which specifically mentioned bloodline and residency as the qualifying criteria by which a player was considered for a SCO code. Perhaps that would make things easier.
Posts: 383
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Yes, it is indeed problematic that the wording treats eligibility for championships and international selection together, eg implicitly implying only a two-year residency for internationl selection (though as as been pointed out, having a SCO code overrides evrything!).
What about a separation of bloodline and international selction, like this (which also resolves the anomaly whereby having a SCO code overrides everything):
16. Eligibility for Scottish individual national championship titles and for representing Scotland in international competitions
16.1. To be eligible to compete for any Scottish individual national championship title (including open to all, gender or age-related championship tournaments) a person must be a member of Chess Scotland currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’), and in addition must meet at least one of 16.1.1 and 16.1.2:
16.1.1. born in Scotland, or have at least one parent born in Scotland, or
16.1.2. permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years immediately prior to the commencement of the competition, or
In the case of Juniors aged 18 and under, the residence qualification period as at 16.1.2 above shall be reduced to one year immediately prior to the commencement of the competition.
16.2. To be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition, a person must be a member of Chess Scotland currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’), and in addition must meet at least ONE of 16.2.1 or 16.2.2:
16.2.1. born in Scotland, or have at least one parent born in Scotland, or
16.2.2. permanently resident in Scotland for at least five years immediately prior to the commencement of the competition.
In addition, to be eligible players must satisfy any other criteria (including age and rating limits) set by the organisers of the tournament concerned:
Selection of individuals and/or teams who will represent Scotland in international competition is the sole responsibility of the appropriate board of selectors. Qualification according to the above criteria is no guarantee of being considered for selection.
[END]
Note I've suggested here 'parent' (could be grandparent, maybe needs a vote) and two years residency for championships and five years residency for international (could be voted on).
Cheers
Walter
Posts: 946
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
Robin Moore Wrote:Does that mean that a strong European player on a short working secondment could join a Scottish club, become a CS member, play a Fide rated Richardson match and accordingly become eligible to represent Scotland at international level? no because he still hasn't been allocated the SCO rating
Posts: 383
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Hi Ian
Dougie Bryson said earlier:
"Participants in the FIDE rated events of SNCL, Rich/Spens, Edinburgh Congress are often not CS members - new players without a FIDE pnum have to be added with a SCO code before the event can be submitted for FIDE rating. Currently we do not check membership status before adding the SCO code."
Presently, the constitution states that this code alone makes you eligible for selection etc - strange, but true.
If the SCO is an artefact of the particular computer/admin arrangements at a particular time, then perhaps it shouldn't really be part of the constitution in the first place!? I'm sure if the officals can deal with foreign players with the wrong code they can surely also deal even better with not having the admin code determining eligibility in the constitution to begin with!
Cheers
Posts: 163
Threads: 13
Joined: Sep 2011
Hi Walter,
Your proposal duplicates the criteria for eligibilty in 16.1 and 16.2. Wouldn't it be simpler to combine the two as I have sugested? Your proposal seems to meet the CWP first principle in these matters of being registered as SCO should carry all privileges by not having any privileges. I may be wrong, but I believe they want being registered as SCO should in itself mean you are eligible to compete for Scottish individual national championships or representing Scotland. If you add an eligibility section for registering as SCO with FIDE as Douglas has said was muted by AW to my suggestion, I believe the CWP intention are met as well as your own with perhaps the exception of people who currently are SCO but do not fulfil your other criteria.
Posts: 946
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
the scenario I like is that if I win the Scottish open, beat everyone hands down, born and raised in Scotland I cant be Scottish champion cos I don't have a SCO rating (i'm not FIDE rated), or have I got it wrong, again. 
The excuse that i'm not good enough just wont wash I might be one day (dreaming again)
Posts: 383
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Hi Gary
I'm sure it’s possible to combine residency, bloodline; however the main problem at the moment is that these criteria are – logically - in the present constitution gazumped by the SCO code, which can be acquired haphazardly.
Where you say ‘other criteria’ - are the other criteria not different eg residency requirement should probably be shorter for champs than for international selection!? Even parent/grandparent might be different, members should decide that! That’s why I separated them in my recent suggestion.
It’s news to me that an admin code should provide ‘privileges’ when it’s easily acquired. It does seem like some have the view that residency, birth and bloodline requirements should be left to the selectors.
If that is the power that is being sought, it would be polite to ask the members for it!
Cheers
Walter
Posts: 460
Threads: 54
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
3
Hi Ian
Ianbrownlee Wrote:the scenario I like is that if I win the Scottish open, beat everyone hands down, born and raised in Scotland I cant be Scottish champion cos I don't have a SCO rating (i'm not FIDE rated), or have I got it wrong, again.
Yep, you got it wrong again, birthright is an automatic and unchallenged right to be Scottish Champion. Fortunately you don't specifically say at what.
Ianbrownlee Wrote:The excuse that i'm not good enough just wont wash I might be one day (dreaming again) You're not dreaming, just stretching the realms of reality into that of fantasy.
Jim
By the way, I have not forgotten the earlier points - this one was an easy answer and took no time at all.
|
