Scottish Champions 2015

[Alan Borwell]

I think there is a difference between "titles"and "prizes" (money). It is Chess Scotland's sole responsibility to decide on Scottish Titles but allocation of prize money should take account of any sponsor/benefactor wishes. There is a need to ensure complete clarity and transparency for the future to avoid such misunderstandings.

[amuir]

Let's hear from Craig and Alan Borwell again on this.
In my view, in order to not confuse the public, there should only be one Scottish Senior champion.
The seniors should decide amongst themselves whether the age limit is 50,60 or 65.
It is not my place to make the decision. This is for arbiters.
If Craig or Alan feel strongly they should raise the matter at the AGM, both on the result of this year's championship and going forward.
I note that for selection debates there is plan to be an overseer. However not for arbiting decisions.
My battle at the AGM is for ID rights.

[Andy Howie]

Let's hear from Craig and Alan Borwell again on this.
In my view, in order to not confuse the public, there should only be one Scottish Senior champion.
The seniors should decide amongst themselves whether the age limit is 50,60 or 65.
It is not my place to make the decision. This is for arbiters.
If Craig or Alan feel strongly they should raise the matter at the AGM, both on the result of this year's championship and going forward.
I note that for selection debates there is plan to be an overseer. However not for arbiting decisions.
My battle at the AGM is for ID rights.

It amazes me that you are not aware of FIDE policies. FIDE have split the seniors much to the bemusement of the seniors themselves.

Craig is satisfied, the Statement would not have gone out had he not been. The only one who seems to want to keep this going is you for some reason.

There is an overseer for Arbiters and has been since before I became an arbiter. Technically there are three. The first is the Arbiters Committee the second is the Technical Director and thirdly we have 2 Principle Arbiters. How many overseers do you want??? I know this from a personal level, I made a mistake a while back. I made a wrong decision. The player mentioned it to Ken who then was kind enough to speak to me about it so I did not make that mistake again.

[Craig Pritchett]

If it helps....

I 'agreed' to the CS statement as it restores my actual achievement as 'Scottish Senior Champion', having finished a half-point ahead of all other 50+ players, which was my main aim. I don't really think it solves 'everything' but it will do for 2015, as far as I am concerned, in a situation in which the other parties insist that there must be two 50+ and 65+ 'winners' of 'something'.

It does, however, leave two clear issues, in my view, that will still need review by CS / organisers / anonymous sponsor for the future:

1. should the S50 (or S65) winner, if they are NOT the overall 'Scottish Senior Champion', receive either a separate 'title' and/or a 'money prize?

If a 'title', that might draw undue public merit from the (new) Scottish Senior Champion title - perhaps especially if the champion is a 65+ player, who outdistanced all other 50+ players, as happened this year. There is clearly room to debate whether there should be such S50/S65 titles, and if so, how to describe them correctly to avoid that problem.

I don't think anyone would object to there being a money prize - described perhaps as (not drafting) 'prize for best 50+/65+ player placed behind the Scottish Senior Champion'.

2. should the winner of the Scottish championship (if 50+) also be awarded any 50+ title(s) and/or money prize(s) for which they may be age-qualified (such as happened in 2013)? This question is closely related to the question whether the 'Scottish Senior champion', if 65+, should be eligible for the 50+ title/money prize (as well as the 65+ awards).

If the 2013 precedent (Scottish champion, who was a 'senior', also took the seniors title and money prize) is to prevail, Walter Buchanan cogently argued that logic suggests that the Scottish Senior Champion, if 65+, must surely be awarded both 50+ and 65+ titles/money prizes .... unless, of course, the 'main' champion was a senior and scooped one or all of the senior title/money prizes!!

I suggested to CS that they therefore also needed to clarify the position of any 50+ or 65+ player who wins the Championship, vis a vis whatever they are awarded, and ensure that there is a logical fit with any decision to award any (remaining) seniors title/money prize.

This is tricky! As chess is a competitive sport, however, I probably tend to the view (as in 2013) that any age-qualified player should be duly awarded all age-related titles they are qualified to receive (it's on merit, after all) ... BUT I don't think that they should receive more than one money prize... in other words there is plenty of room to award a range of money prizes to others, which I think is probably good for chess and the game in Scotland.

In summary, I agree completely with Alan Borwell that much still needs to be clarified for the future.

[Alex McFarlane]

The future of Senior Titles will be looked at.

Some years ago the age for a senior at the Scottish was 50. In view of the aging population and the standard of some of more senior players I started to increase that age with the agreement of the AGM. It was to be raised to 60 over a period of 10 years.

FIDE then made a decision on its Senior events and I halted the age increase at 55. The FIDE ages of 50 and 65 seem to be with us now and accepted (if not approved) by most. There is therefore some logic in 'falling in line'.
However, there is no compulsion to do so. We could return to just one title, we could have a 50-64 title (though I don't see that getting much support), we could even introduce a Veteran title for over 75s.

The decision is for the appropriate Director to make or for Council or the AGM to decide. I will certainly be looking at it in the next few weeks.

I am puzzled by the claim that this is an arbiters decision. Why would it be so? Arbiters are there to enforce the rules in place. It is up to the Directors to ensure that the proper procedures are there. I will not comment publicly on the blunderbuss approach adopted by one of the other posters (for clarity, obviously not Craig) but have asked him privately to explain his position.

I again thank Craig for his understanding in this matter, which hopefully has not distracted too much from what appears to have been a successful and much enjoyed event.

[amuir]

Alex, thanks for clearing up and satisfying Craig. Great congress.

[Andy McCulloch]

I wish to apologise for my post on Monday morning.
It was a shoddy piece of work, which in retrospect, I am not proud of.

[Ianbrownlee]

I wish to apologise for my post on Monday morning.It was a shoddy piece of work, which in retrospect, I am not proud of.

It's Okay Andy we're all human and we all know you're a decent guy at heart. I've said and posted some stupid things over the years. The important thing is we move on and forget about it

[Craig Pritchett]

I accept that Andy McC's retraction is wholly sincere and helpfully adds to what has been an extremely constructive debate in this thread on a range of age-related matters. Let's perhaps move on with that very thought ... Age matters!