Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria

[WBuchanan]

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.

Andy B, I definitely was not imputing any election fault on your part.

Andy H - wasn't Andy M the outgoing ID in 2015 - it was said that he could therefore have been accepted as ID there and then. There was an issue of whether the unannounced candidacy of AndyB should be allowed. The chair was pretty firm that day - the objections to the standards committee nominations (NOT to the people being nominated but the way they were imposed on the meeting) were similarly dismissed.

[BTW the minutes of the meeting aren't in their place, all the items seem to point to the current home page. However these tend just to be rubber stamped a year later anyway. I recall that when I objected to part of the minutes of the SGM in Edinburgh, it was just ignored.]

Not that I minded any people's candidacies but if the management don't take seriously the democratic procedures the process becomes a bit of a show.

Back to the present point -  sure AndyB, I'll withdraw the point about the AGM in this context if you like.

Is it not true though that there was no indication when you took office in 2015 that you were standing for this kind of change?

Sorry if I have bugged you - hope you're going to answer some of my other points.

Best
Walter

[Andrew Greet]

Andy B – you may prefer to dodge the ‘what if’ scenario concerning, say, Keti; but the purpose of it is to flag up a possible situation in which you will have boxed yourself in to making a team selection which could at best be described as insane. (I say this with absolutely no disrespect towards any of our other women players; it’s just a simple fact that Keti’s playing strength is vastly superior, and I don’t think anyone would dispute this.)

This isn’t a red herring – this is what we need to do when deciding whether or not to introduce some drastic change to the way things have previously been done. There might be advantages to the change; but we also need to ask, “Are there any potential situations in which this new way of doing things could f**k things up for us?”

I’ll break the argument down into three statements. Tell me which one(s) you disagree with, because I can’t see how any of them can be sensibly disputed.

1) If Keti ends up being excluded from selection for the next women's Olympiad team (in her native Georgia, no less) in favour of someone around the 1700 level who has played a few more recent games, it would be an act of lunacy: truly a f**k-up of galactic proportions for Scottish chess.
2) Your rule has the potential to cause exactly the above outcome.
3) Therefore the rule should be amended, toned down, or modified in some way.

Playing a decent amount of chess is important, for sure. By all means, set your proposed numbers as an expected minimum standard. But please leave a bit of room for selectors to look at the overall picture without having their hands tied by one overly rigid rule. In other words, set some clear guidelines regarding activity, but allow the selectors to exercise good judgement and generally avoid f**king up one or both of our Olympiad teams.

[andyburnett]

Walter, apology accepted. For the record, a decent chunk of my income comes from chess-related activities and I can't/won't allow anything which could be (mis)construed as unethical behaviour to stand/affect that.

Andrew, As far as I know I have always shown you the utmost respect, but for some reason you seem hell-bent on being offensive in this thread. I've already asked you to be civil and now I'm faced with an expletive-laden post which you expect me to respond to? It's not going to happen, and that goes for anyone else who thinks that being ignorant, offensive, swearing, etc is an acceptable approach.

[Andy Howie]

I have just checked Keti's player record for the last couple of years. Activity wise Keti would more than meet the requirement.

As someone who is unlikely to ever represent Scotland playing, I have stayed out of this but it occurs to me that the same theme is cropping up, therefore I'd like to ask the following.

Is it reasonable for a player wishing to represent their country in a team event to have shown a level of activity in the previous 6 months / 12 months?

If the answer to this is yes it is reasonable, then define what that activity level should be.

Personally I would like to see it extended to 9 months so that the Scottish is counted (assuming selections take place in March / April) but this is my personal thoughts.

To reply to Walters posts. As was established in the 2013 or 2014 AGM, the AGM did not want to be spending time discussing selection procedures. It was felt it was better left to the Directors to devise and publish as what we now call standing orders.

To your point about the 2015 AGM. I really didn't want to go over old ground on this. The ID despite having several reminders did not submit a nomination even close to the time and announced on the noticeboard that he was not standing. Andy Burnett contacted me as he was interested in the post and I said I would put him forward at the AGM.

At the AGM, Andy M turned up and was nominated / seconded. I nominated Andy Burnett as I had agreed to, there was then a discussion as to whether we could have a contested election from nominations from the floor. It was agreed we could and it took place. There is a thread on this very forum with the information in the run up to that AGM.

With the constitution change in 2016, we stopped nominations from the floor. If a post is not filled or rejected at the AGM, it then falls to the Management Board to find a suitable person

[amuir]

"The ID despite having several reminders did not submit a nomination even close to the time"
- not true - I did not get any reminders - I did not submit a nomination because the notice on the CS website requiring a fresh nomination had slipped down the news list due to other items which led to me overlooking it. In fact Walter had to remind me of the missed deadline.

[Matthew Turner]

I have just checked Keti's player record for the last couple of years.  Activity wise Keti would more than meet the requirement.  

As someone who is unlikely to ever represent Scotland playing, I have stayed out of this but it occurs to me that the same theme is cropping up, therefore I'd like to ask the following.

Is it reasonable for a player wishing to represent their country in a team event to have shown a level of activity in the previous 6 months / 12 months?

If the answer to this is yes it is reasonable, then define what that activity level should be.

Personally I would like to see it extended to 9 months so that the Scottish is counted (assuming selections take place in March / April) but this is my personal thoughts.

To reply to Walters posts.  As was established in the 2013 or 2014 AGM, the AGM did not want to be spending time discussing selection procedures.  It was felt it was better left to the Directors to devise and publish as what we now call standing orders.

Andy H, I don't think anyone disagrees with what you have said.  Everyone thinks it would be better if our strongest players played more.  So, everyone supports what Andy Burnett is trying to achieve.
However, you have said "it is reasonable to define what the level of activity SHOULD be".  Andy Burnett has defined what the level of activity HAS to be.  There is a selection committee, so surely we should allow them to select, set guidelines, but don't tie their hands.

[Andrew Greet]

Andrew, As far as I know I have always shown you the utmost respect, but for some reason you seem hell-bent on being offensive in this thread. I've already asked you to be civil and now I'm faced with an expletive-laden post which you expect me to respond to? It's not going to happen, and that goes for anyone else who thinks that being ignorant, offensive, swearing, etc is an acceptable approach.

I have always liked you personally Andy, and nothing has changed in that regard; you're a good guy but I just think you've gone too far with this policy. I used the term "f**k-up* because I couldn't think of a more apt way of describing that hypothetical scenario; who hasn't used the occasional swear word to get a point across? I am not attacking you personally, and would happily go for a beer with you any time (although it would be best if we stayed off this topic). Rather, I'm attacking this one decision you've made. I actually admire your boldness and willingness to engage with criticism, both on this board and in earlier private messages we exchanged - not an easy thing to do. Please just think about toning down the rule so as to allow selectors to exercise some good judgement without having their hands completely tied.

[WBuchanan]

AndyB there was no question of your ethical impropriety in the first place, that was your reaction. I highlighted a genuine democratic issue with the nominations/processes. We are only still discussing the 'old ground' because AndyH suggested the issue hadn't existed, and because you then rebuked me on that basis.

The point I was making was that overall, there is not much in the way of a democratic mandate for such a drastic rule change.

Like Andrew Greet I speak from a position of great respect for you (indeed all the Andies involved ) and ask you to consider just the points made. In particular, whether this change is good for the Olympiad team and the natural interests of the CS membership that they represent. This includes players and candidates of course, but the CS membership is much wider!

Is there anything to lose by just consulting the membership? We already have electronic voting - if a general election can be held in three weeks, well you know....

Cheers
Walter

[Craig Pritchett]

You are the fortunate captain of a club team: Rowson, Greet, McNab, Shaw, Arakhamia-Grant. They've been a bit inactive in FIDE classical chess over the last year but you know that they are all keen to commit to winning the upcoming SNCL for you, have all, in fact, played as much as they could in the last six months or so, including rapidplays, blitz and online games. And that most of them have also been involved in coaching and training and in some cases even worked on books that required them to put in numerous hours of deeply intensive database and engine-based research and analysis on the games of some of the greatest players in the world.

You don't, however, think that they meet your recent activity requirements so you drop them. A new club activity rule suggests (even predicts) that they simply can't be expected to make a better fist of becoming Scottish champions than your best 1900-2200 players (you are quite a strong club), who have played sufficient FIDE rated games in the last 6 months or so. You say to the unsurprisingly puzzled and chastened, erstwhile as keen as mustard, top-rated players that they should simply have played more recent FIDE-rated games because the rule, which is inviolate, simply requires them to have so re-arranged their busy lifestyles in ways that it believes they simply 'ought to'. They in turn ask you to arrange a training match to help prepare their less experienced colleagues for their forthcoming battles and win 5-0.

As a selector do you begin to have doubts about the recently introduced club activity rule? Do you begin to fear that it perhaps contains an apparently undue bias towards irrationality away from more duly balanced discretionary selection principles. Discuss!? Certainly re-think!?

By the way, if any change is of value, I have always long liked the idea that the Scottish champion should have a right of refusal of a place (but not to a specific board) on the Olympiad or Euro Championship team that is next due in the period beginning, say three months after winning the title. I think that there really is a case for this that might well be broadly supported (George Neave, above, appears to approve). Win-win all round, not least for the likely interest that aspiring players will show to the Scottish Championship!?

[Ianbrownlee]

Hi Guys
just a gentle reminder Chess Scotland moderators will not tolerate profanities or perceived profanities. I acknowledge there are no personal attacks but please mind the language