Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria

[Craig Pritchett]

'to be considered ... a player must have completed a minimum of 15 (standard length) graded games over the 6 months prior to the selection deadline date'

I do not like the proposed changes, especially the above.

First, the existing selection criteria, which have been extant a very long time and as I recall resulted from a painstaking process that invited views from many parties, have functioned very well - read them. Haven't they actually worked quite well? At any rate I do not recall many serious complaints about selection in the past; in particular who, if any one, has managed to walk into a place without some sort of serious assessment that they are strong and indeed recently active enough? Selectors need to be able to exercise reasonable discretion and it's written in carefully to the existing criteria as they stand.

Second, if there is a need to spell out the activity criteria, I agree with others who argue that there should be 'wiggle room'. In other words the abrupt 'must' statement above should be phrased in some more reasonable way, such as 'ordinarily will be expected to but not necessarily required'. I used to be a selector. I wouldn't want to be constrained by something like the headline statement in bold above and might well resign.

Thirdly, the requirement itself, if something like it really needs to be spelled out in such specific terms (which I doubt), is far too constraining. On this I also agree with many others that the requirement needs at least to be drawn more broadly. Why 6 months and a mere 15 games? When 12 months and 30 rated games actually gives you a properly statistical sample to draw from that at the same time allows prospective selectees, the great majority of whom work full-time, a better chance to decide when to enter the necessary events through the year to qualify.

Fourthly, on an extension of that point, why specify FIDE rating points? If you play against a player with a FIDE rating of say 2300-2400 in an event that isn't FIDE rated but CS rated, why ignore the latter if by its exclusion that player is one game short of the curiously sacrosanct 'FIDE' requirement? By the way, the existing draft selection criteria cover this very point already in a most sensible way.

Fifthly, why shouldn't rated rapid games count? Increasingly some of the most competitive chess out there resides in some of these events (e.g. more than a few Scots are heading to the extremely strong English Rapidplay championships, Liverpool 23-24 September). For the aspiring player who truly seeks to improve his or her game, these provide not just excellent competition but also allow many more games to be played in a short period and at lower cost than always having to play in Opens.

I could go on and I agree with many other points made about the difficulties and potential contradictions involved in writing selection criteria in ways that do not allow selectors sufficient discretion to do their job well. In my experience, the CS selectors are usually not just well-qualified to exercise the discretion that goes with that job but have on the whole done that job well ... there may occasionally be problems at the margin (and I always found filling a final place in a Scottish team difficult when there were more than one player, who all had frankly excellent claims to that place) but tough decisions do indeed sometimes have to be made.

Finally is this a fait accompli? I hope not.

[amuir]

The clock is ticking. The next Olympiad is in September 2018. Selections should then be made in April 2018. The 6 month playing period is then October 2017 - March 2018. But it is already too late to enter some events e.g. Isle of Man, Gibraltar are booked up months in advance, where are the 8 FIDE games going to come from ? The Scottish is ruled out. Poor Colin McNab might miss his first Olympiad in a generation.

[PeterReidSmith]

An inevitably emotive topic.
I don't entirely agree with the criteria as proposed, but salute the visibility and the discussion it's prompted - always a good thing.

It's right to have a filter on activity, and a filter on strength - maybe the details could be compromised on a little.
At one point with the juniors we pretty much just filtered out the clearly inactive and then ranked on ELO as a simple function of CS and FIDE grades - I still feel something that simple and semi-mechanistic is best and most objective.

As I've argued previously, the word "discretion" can easily become (conscious or subconscious) "bias" - it's best avoided, or at least minimised.

[Adam Bremner]

Previously I was against selection requiring too many FIDE games due to it being impractical, but 8 seems a good number: one big tournament or 2 weekenders. Getting the other 7 is easy enough if you really want to find them.

People shouldn't just get to walk into teams on old ratings. If you don't play it can't be considered a fair reflection and domestically it is no help to Scottish chess.

[Gary McPheator]

I welcome this change.

As a congress organiser, anything that encourages our strongest players to play more regularly will always get a thumbs up from me. I believe that the more this happens, the better the chance for the players who compete against them will improve leading to an overall increase in the strength of our players and subsequently the strength of the Scottish teams in the long term.

To deal with the possible pitfalls laid out by others, I suggest allowing one wildcard pick that doesn't need to meet this criteria. Selectors would then have the option of picking the strongest person who does not meet the required game activity or the next best person who does.

[andyburnett]

'to be considered ... a player must have completed a minimum of 15 (standard length) graded games over the 6 months prior to the selection deadline date'

I do not like the proposed changes, especially the above.

First, the existing selection criteria, which have been extant a very long time and as I recall resulted from a painstaking process that invited views from many parties, have functioned very well - read them. Haven't they actually worked quite well? At any rate I do not recall many serious complaints about selection in the past; in particular who, if any one, has managed to walk into a place without some sort of serious assessment that they are strong and indeed recently active enough? Selectors need to be able to exercise reasonable discretion and it's written in carefully to the existing criteria as they stand.

Hi Craig, I have read them of course. They have worked reasonably well over the years but less and less in recent years. Things change, our top-rated players are playing fewer and fewer games and there have indeed been complaints about the process.

Second, if there is a need to spell out the activity criteria, I agree with others who argue that there should be 'wiggle room'. In other words the abrupt 'must' statement above should be phrased in some more reasonable way, such as 'ordinarily will be expected to but not necessarily required'. I used to be a selector. I wouldn't want to be constrained by something like the headline statement in bold above and might well resign.

'Wiggle room' leaves room for complaint and finding selectors is becoming more difficult, hence removing one aspect which leaves players with a less-than-onerous number of games to reach if they are serious about representing their country and making the selectors task easier should be seen as a positive step. Resigning? Well, if we all reacted like that...

Thirdly, the requirement itself, if something like it really needs to be spelled out in such specific terms (which I doubt), is far too constraining. On this I also agree with many others that the requirement needs at least to be drawn more broadly. Why 6 months and a mere 15 games? When 12 months and 30 rated games actually gives you a properly statistical sample to draw from that at the same time allows prospective selectees, the great majority of whom work full-time, a better chance to decide when to enter the necessary events through the year to qualify.

If we made it 30 games in 12 months there would be one or two players playing simultaneous matches at the Olympiad and Euros. The 6-month, 15 games is, again, easily do-able for anyone serious about their chess (One nine-rounder and a league commitment? Two weekenders and an extra event? 4NCL and two weekenders or a league?) The games are  closer to the event in question and therefore more relevant, and when known in advance should not be a problem.

Fourthly, on an extension of that point, why specify FIDE rating points? If you play against a player with a FIDE rating of say 2300-2400 in an event that isn't FIDE rated but CS rated, why ignore the latter if by its exclusion that player is one game short of the curiously sacrosanct 'FIDE' requirement? By the way, the existing draft selection criteria cover this very point already in a most sensible way.

Why don't we simply count any game played against anyone anywhere? Because FIDE-rated events tend to be taken more seriously, so a certain amount of them makes sense and also makes the player's FIDE-rating more accurate.

Fifthly, why shouldn't rated rapid games count? Increasingly some of the most competitive chess out there resides in some of these events (e.g. more than a few Scots are heading to the extremely strong English Rapidplay championships, Liverpool 23-24 September). For the aspiring player who truly seeks to improve his or her game, these provide not just excellent competition but also allow many more games to be played in a short period and at lower cost than always having to play in Opens.

If you are serious about this, why not include blitz games? Rapid-play events are useful as you say, but until the Olympiad or Euros are set at that rate of play I don't see the relevance. No prep time, 5 or 6 times faster play, it's simply not the same thing at all. As someone who has played both on a very, very regular basis for the past 3 years (and generally for 30 years before that) I think I can trust my own judgement on this - other views welcome of course, but to be perfectly honest I don't consider this a serious point.

I could go on and I agree with many other points made about the difficulties and potential contradictions involved in writing selection criteria in ways that do not allow selectors sufficient discretion to do their job well. In my experience, the CS selectors are usually not just well-qualified to exercise the discretion that goes with that job but have on the whole done that job well ... there may occasionally be problems at the margin (and I always found filling a final place in a Scottish team difficult when there were more than one player, who all had frankly excellent claims to that place) but tough decisions do indeed sometimes have to be made.

I'm sure there are a hundred exceptions to everything Craig, but I'm also sure the vast majority of them do not address the problem that players are simply not playing enough games to justify what amounts to automatic selection for major international team competitions. What Scotland hopes to achieve in such competitions is not being addressed by the current criteria and I do not believe that they best serve the interests of Scottish international team chess for the future. The selectors do a difficult job - this change makes it easier.

Finally is this a fait accompli? I hope not.

As I wrote previously, there is room and time for tweaks but you'll have to convince me of their merits - so far I'm not swayed.

Kind regards,
Andy

---

The clock is ticking. The next Olympiad is in September 2018. Selections should then be made in April 2018. The 6 month playing period is then October 2017 - March 2018. But it is already too late to enter some events e.g. Isle of Man, Gibraltar are booked up months in advance, where are the 8 FIDE games going to come from ? The Scottish is ruled out. Poor Colin McNab might miss his first Olympiad in a generation.

There are umpteen FIDE-rated tournaments which players can play in Andy. Colin will, I'm sure, play the necessary amount of games to 'qualify', is highly likely to make the team based on his playing strength and will be warmly welcomed as he always is as one of our most-decorated and experienced players. I should reiterate, however, that nobody will be automatically walking into the team regardless of their previous!

[WBuchanan]

Appreciate your willingness to reply AndyB...

"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. "

Your imminent requirement is not aimed at just "highly inactive players" though - only highly active will get in, a bit different!

You add that "Experience counts for a lot."

As you are actually proposing it counts for nothing towards what the players actually want, this would appear to be the red herring.

"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."

I think the idea is that there is normally an AGM proposal on what's considered most important or most contentious and this will have ramifications. What is the point of the AGM if such important matters can just bypass it?

"Ultimately, if the things I do are hugely unpopular or detrimental to chess in Scotland, I'll be voted out of office! "

The democratic card? Hey, I already played that But Andy, you weren't voted into office on such a ticket, though. We saw no plans, and the rule even seemed to be bent to allow your last-minute inclusion as a candidate at the AGM. If you don't have clear reason to believe you have support of the members on this issue, then from the point of view of democracy (transparency, etc, the things you used to complain about before you took office) I think you should be consulting them.

My complaint is about the lack of consultation. In terms of the issue, I agree we probably should try to get more chess from the top players for the sake of the Olympiad team - but we should not try to hold back the places as bargaining chips against the top players in order to advance other agendas especially as the benefit to the Olympiad is not clear.

As I said, CS would do well to organize a debate on this and be seen to listen. What is the Olympiad team for - does CS management simply own it, or own the rights to it?

Best
Walter

[andyburnett]

Hi Walter, The line '...and the rule even seemed to be bent to allow your last-minute inclusion as a candidate at the AGM' has me confused. Until that's cleared up I don't imagine I'll reply to anything else.

[Andy Howie]

Andy was elected at the 2016 AGM. Was properly proposed and seconded and elected.

There were no candidates for ID submitted in time for the 2015 AGM. We had Andy Muir from the floor and Andy Burnett had contacted me prior to the AGM to express interest. Andy was elected at the AGM.

There was no rule bending.

The constitution was changed in 2016 and we no longer allow people to be nominated from the floor. In the event there is no candidate (or indeed the candidate is rejected at the election), then it is up to the Management Board to appoint someone to fill the role

[andyburnett]

Andy was elected at the 2016 AGM.  Was properly proposed and seconded and elected.

There were no candidates for ID submitted in time for the 2015 AGM.   We had Andy Muir from the floor and Andy Burnett had contacted me prior to the AGM to express interest.  Andy was elected at the AGM.  

There was no rule bending

Thanks for clarifying that Andy.

Walter, please, in future check these things in private before making a public comment like that.