Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria

[Matthew Turner]

For the record, I don't think the Scottish Champion should have an automatic place.  The selectors should have the flexibility to select somebody, but they also need the flexibility to not select somebody.  I am not particularly talking about strength here, but you are selecting a team and the Scottish Champion simply might not fit into the team.  I am making a general point here rather than about any particular individual

[Alex McFarlane]

It always sounds like a good idea that the Champion should make the Scottish team.

However, the Scottish Champion having a place in a Scottish team will have consequences.


The Olympiad is normally held in September/October.  The Scottish is held in July.  Does this mean that a place has to be left unfilled when the initial selections are made?  Should the Scottish move to a different date to accommodate one player's selection?

If the previous year's Champion is given a place should that be withdrawn if the player becomes inactive?

Also will a player be able to get time off work for the Scottish and the Olympiad if they are held close together?

In terms of qualifying for the European Championship then it is almost a poisoned chalice as little or no financial support is given.  I doubt if this potential invitation would attract many players to the Scottish.

If the Scottish is to be used as a qualifying event then, in my opinion, it should be a closed event.  This is not financially feasible.  It would also potentially mean that the number of title norm events held in Scotland would be reduced to 0.  To clarify, a ten player all-play-all for the Championship title might not have the 5 titled players necessary for norm chances as it would rely on players competing totally at their own expense.  Without the Scottish titled players an Open held alongside would also not have the titled players available to make norm chances viable.

My feeling is that when considered fully the idea of giving this award to the Scottish Champion would actually be counter-productive and detrimental to chess in Scotland in general.

[Andrew Greet]

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

Noted.

[WBuchanan]

I agree with Alex's reasoning.

I also don't think the Championship in the current Open format merits an Olympiad place, because the main idea of a Championship is that the winner beats their rivals. Within the confiines of an Open the draw can play a lively part.

As it happens the recent winners of the Championship have won it decisively, but it won't always happen. A few years back I had an outside chance going into the last round - and I hadn't even pllayed very well!

If the idea goes forward I would suggest another criterion like a mimimum 'rating performance', or a clear margin not a tie break or something like that.

Matthew, how can a player not fit into a team? I'm intrigued...(off to think about players and teams' shapes  )

Cheers

[KMcGeoch]

On the whole I'd say idea sounds sensible. Only flaw that I think Andy H touched upon a bit before is that depending on when the 6 months runs from it's possible that there may not be a lot of tournaments run at that time to fit all the qualification matches and I remember reading that apparently FIDE rated events for people over 2200 can't have 3 hour sessions so it might be an issue if people are excluded from congresses with max limit sections.

I have also read quite a few people saying it's hard to get matches against strong opposition in Scotland. With this scenario people would either face strong players in local competitions or players who play regularly would then have opportunity to face strong players representing Scotland.

I'll note that Keti idea with her potentially ruled out to me isn't really a huge issue. If we take it to logical extreme in opposite direction and found ourselves with Carlsen, MVL, Kramnik, Aronian and Caruana all mysteriously discovering they have a Scottish grandmother and deciding to represent Scotland at Olympiads while simultaneously deciding their new found Scottish roots don't go far enough to actually visit Scotland or play in local events then I don't think it would benefit Scottish chess. On the other hand if we field an ambitious team of 2200s who are active and work on their chess a lot but struggle to get norm opportunities we could be looking at several new IMs and GMs that to me would be a much bigger benefit.

At most maybe a wild card like in Ryder cup might be viable in exceptional circumstances (e.g. Was an astronaut on International Space Station or broke their leg) although problem is that exceptional circumstances is subjective

[Matthew Turner]

On the whole I'd say idea sounds sensible. Only flaw that I think Andy H touched upon a bit before is that depending on when the 6 months runs from it's possible that there may not be a lot of tournaments run at that time to fit all the qualification matches and I remember reading that apparently FIDE rated events for people over 2200 can't have 3 hour sessions so it might be an issue if people are excluded from congresses with max limit sections.

I have also read quite a few people saying it's hard to get matches against strong opposition in Scotland. With this scenario people would either face strong players in local competitions or players who play regularly would then have opportunity to face strong players representing Scotland.

I'll note that Keti idea with her potentially ruled out to me isn't really a huge issue. If we take it to logical extreme in opposite direction and found ourselves with Carlsen, MVL, Kramnik, Aronian and Caruana all mysteriously discovering they have a Scottish grandmother and deciding to represent Scotland at Olympiads while simultaneously deciding their new found Scottish roots don't go far enough to actually visit Scotland or play in local events then I don't think it would benefit Scottish chess. On the other hand if we field an ambitious team of 2200s who are active and work on their chess a lot but struggle to get norm opportunities we could be looking at several new IMs and GMs that to me would be a much bigger benefit.

At most maybe a wild card like in Ryder cup might be viable in exceptional circumstances (e.g. Was an astronaut on International Space Station or broke their leg) although problem is that exceptional circumstances is subjective

---

I think you are confusing a couple of things here. The European Ryder Cup Team selects the top 5 players from the World rankings and the top 5 players from the Euro tour then there are 3 wildcards. This would be analogous to selecting four Olympiad players purely on rating and one from the International Director (or selection panel). What you are suggesting is that one player would be able to by-pass the selection rules; This doesn't happen with the Ryder Cup. You have to play a certain number of events on the European Tour and if you don't you don't play - end of, so in essence very similar to what Andy Burnett is wanting to put in place.

[andyburnett]

So, back on track and no harm done...I'll try to answer everything asked of me specifically, although work has to take priority so responses might be slow at times.

@Walter et al.
This change is not a wholesale change - it is one aspect, albeit an important one, of the criteria used to govern international team selection. There has been a huge amount of discussion about it and...no consensus. Part of my role as ID is to make certain decisions on such matters, and I didn't pull this one out of my...nether regions (Moderator post noted also Ian!)

So, passing it by the AGM for a member-wide vote is always a possibility, but I didn't/don't see how it makes a huge impact on the wider membership? Of course, you can argue that every single change made to any aspect of chess in Scotland has an impact on 'the wider membership' but in that case we don't need directors at all. Just put everything up for a vote and go with the result.

As to the question highly inactive vs highly active, for someone to gain international honours I believe 'highly active (a very relative term) should be the default, 'highly inactive' should be way down the list if it's on it at all and 'inactive' should be automatically excluded. Representing Scotland should be the main aim, or one of the main aims, of every strong player in the country - and if their focus isn't on that but rather on playing occasional games as and when their life allows, then why should international honours be bestowed upon that person?

@ Andrew
In the 'Keti what if' scenario, what would happen is that we would do what we did before Keti made herself available for the women's team, and what we will do when/if she decides to retire from competitive play, or what we would do if she was somehow otherwise unavailable - we would put out our best team comprised of those who want to play, have fulfilled all the criteria - and I am sure they would represent our country to the best of their abilities and be proud of the opportunity. However, Keti is a consummate professional in the chess world and I have no doubt that she'll fulfill whatever criteria are required - so I really don't see this 'argument' as particularly valid or important, sorry.

@Matt
There are a huge number of countries who use a set 'minimum game' criteria for selection, so this is not some random idea with no basis behind it. The selectors will still have a free hand to compare and discuss and decide from those players who have met the criteria - just as they do at the moment.

@Craig
If Scotland's goal was to win or achieve such a high position as would make a huge difference to the game in this country I might be swayed by your argument, but it's simply not the case. Please take a look back at the Olympiad results from 2000 onwards as I have done and tell me what are Scotland hoping to achieve at the Olympiad? I believe the focus should be on trying to outperform seeding, offering double-norm opportunities to our strongest active players, providing a platform and experience for those dedicated to the game, etcc.

If we followed the logic of your argument to its natural end, we could simply waive any and all criteria for our top rated players, and get them to play - at the expense of those who are actively supporting chess, actively participating, actively aiming for international honours, etc.

Ok, I need to take a break now

---

I'm back...

So, offer some ways to tweak the criteria without changing the basic premise that a certain minimum number of games will be required and see what we get...

Ideas I've had, as have others:
-Extend the period/rules to somehow include the Scottish (I'm in touch with Alex McF about the Scottish element already)
-Implement a 'commitment to play Scottish' element prior to the Olympiad/Euros (including those games to reach the minimum)
-Offer an Easter event for those who think they won't make the minimum. Say, 2 weekends at ECC, 4 games.
-Change the minimum number (although 15 would be my own choice of absolute minimum per 6 months)

Any others?

[Alice_L]

Reading through the posts, I have a few questions (apologies if these have already been addressed, or if I have misunderstood anything...:

Firstly, is selection based on FIDE rating or CS grade (and is that active grade or published grade)? I see that players are often compared by FIDE rating which would be useful to compare level in international and larger tournaments, and I feel is appropriate for more "full-time" players, however for others (thinking more about female players), FIDE rating and CS grade can be significantly different. Which has more value for selection?

I saw that the idea of "supporting chess in Scotland" came up as being something worth considering during selection. From a personal point of view, I currently study at uni in England, therefore can rarely play in Scotland (only during holidays); is this something that would count against being selected due to little activity in Scottish tournaments?

I'm slightly unsure as to whether the period of play being considered would be in the last 6 months or the last 12 months... I tend to think it should be in the last 12 months as this would ensure to include the Scottish and (in cases such as mine) would help increase the number of FIDE games considered (as well as games in Scotland), which players may have less opportunities to attend at other times during the year.

I fully understand that choosing to play chess over other things in life would increase chance of selection, and I totally agree that more committed players who make more of an stretch to attend more tournaments should perhaps be selected over similarly or slightly higher rated players; however looking at the top 10 or so females in Scotland, it may be difficult to support commitment and activity as much as level of play (for example Ali and myself playing less due to studies, and Elaine decreasing activity due to family)- due to the unfortunate lack of female players in Scotland, we could quickly run out of strong enough players who have been active all year round...

(My first post on the Chess Scotland Forum- Woop Woop!!! ).

---

So, back on track and no harm done...I'll try to answer everything asked of me specifically, although work has to take priority so responses might be slow at times.

@Walter et al.
This change is not a wholesale change - it is one aspect, albeit an important one, of the criteria used to govern international team selection. There has been a huge amount of discussion about it and...no consensus. Part of my role as ID is to make certain decisions on such matters, and I didn't pull this one out of my...nether regions (Moderator post noted also Ian!)

So, passing it by the AGM for a member-wide vote is always a possibility, but I didn't/don't see how it makes a huge impact on the wider membership? Of course, you can argue that every single change made to any aspect of chess in Scotland has an impact on 'the wider membership' but in that case we don't need directors at all. Just put everything up for a vote and go with the result.

As to the question highly inactive vs highly active, for someone to gain international honours I believe 'highly active (a very relative term) should be the default, 'highly inactive' should be way down the list if it's on it at all and 'inactive' should be automatically excluded. Representing Scotland should be the main aim, or one of the main aims, of every strong player in the country - and if their focus isn't on that but rather on playing occasional games as and when their life allows, then why should international honours be bestowed upon that person?

@ Andrew
In the 'Keti what if' scenario, what would happen is that we would do what we did before Keti made herself available for the women's team, and what we will do when/if she decides to retire from competitive play, or what we would do if she was somehow otherwise unavailable - we would put out our best team comprised of those who want to play, have fulfilled all the criteria - and I am sure they would represent our country to the best of their abilities and be proud of the opportunity. However, Keti is a consummate professional in the chess world and I have no doubt that she'll fulfill whatever criteria are required - so I really don't see this 'argument' as particularly valid or important, sorry.

@Matt
There are a huge number of countries who use a set 'minimum game' criteria for selection, so this is not some random idea with no basis behind it. The selectors will still have a free hand to compare and discuss and decide from those players who have met the criteria - just as they do at the moment.

@Craig
If Scotland's goal was to win or achieve such a high position as would make a huge difference to the game in this country I might be swayed by your argument, but it's simply not the case.  Please take a look back at the Olympiad results from 2000 onwards as I have done and tell me  what are Scotland hoping to achieve at the Olympiad? I believe the focus should be on trying to outperform seeding, offering double-norm opportunities to our strongest active players, providing a platform and experience for those dedicated to the game, etcc.

If we followed the logic of your argument to its natural end, we could simply waive any and all criteria for our top rated players, and get them to play - at the expense of those who are actively supporting chess, actively participating, actively aiming for international honours, etc.

Ok, I need to take a break now

---

I'm back...

So, offer some ways to tweak the criteria without changing the basic premise that a certain minimum number of games will be required and see what we get...

Ideas I've had, as have others:
-Extend the period/rules to somehow include the Scottish (I'm in touch with Alex McF about the Scottish element already)
-Implement a 'commitment to play Scottish' element prior to the Olympiad/Euros (including those games to reach the minimum)
-Offer an Easter event for those who think they won't make the minimum. Say, 2 weekends at ECC, 4 games.
-Change the minimum number (although 15 would be my own choice of absolute minimum per 6 months)

Any others?

This updated criteria sounds much better to me

[KMcGeoch]

Here's an issue that could apply. Some leagues update results at end of the season for grading meaning that in the middle of the season all of your games may not be up for grading. Thus would it be sensible to have criteria being 15 games (8 FIDE) in 6 months or 30 games (16 FIDE) in 12 months and if any of the two apply they're classed as active

[andyburnett]

Here's an issue that could apply. Some leagues update results at end of the season for grading meaning that in the middle of the season all of your games may not be up for grading. Thus would it be sensible to have criteria being 15 games (8 FIDE) in 6 months or 30 games (16 FIDE) in 12 months and if any of the two apply they're classed as active

Interesting and useful point Kenny Will have a look at that aspect.

---

Reading through the posts, I have a few questions (apologies if these have already been addressed, or if I have misunderstood anything...:

Firstly, is selection based on FIDE rating or CS grade (and is that active grade or published grade)? I see that players are often compared by FIDE rating which would be useful to compare level in international and larger tournaments, and I feel is appropriate for more "full-time" players, however for others (thinking more about female players), FIDE rating and CS grade can be significantly different. Which has more value for selection?
Firstly, is selection based on FIDE rating or CS grade (and is that active grade or published grade)?

Hi Alice. Welcome to the forum! The selectors will look at both ratings/grades, the number of each played, levels of play etc when deciding.

I saw that the idea of "supporting chess in Scotland" came up as being something worth considering during selection. From a personal point of view, I currently study at uni in England, therefore can rarely play in Scotland (only during holidays); is this something that would count against being selected due to little activity in Scottish tournaments?

Absolutely not. We have many players living all over the globe who have represented Scotland both now and in the past. The selectors aren't fussed if you live in Moscow, Russia or Moscow, Ayrshire!

I'm slightly unsure as to whether the period of play being considered would be in the last 6 months or the last 12 months... I tend to think it should be in the last 12 months as this would ensure to include the Scottish and (in cases such as mine) would help increase the number of FIDE games considered (as well as games in Scotland), which players may have less opportunities to attend at other times during the year.

The 'previous 6 months' has been chosen as the most recent and indicative level of play, although as I mentioned before this may be tweaked, with the number of games rising accordingly from my viewpoint at least. The inclusion of the Scottish is currently under consideration/discussion too.

I fully understand that choosing to play chess over other things in life would increase chance of selection, and I totally agree that more committed players who make more of an stretch to attend more tournaments should perhaps be selected over similarly or slightly higher rated players; however looking at the top 10 or so females in Scotland, it may be difficult to support commitment and activity as much as level of play (for example Ali and myself playing less due to studies, and Elaine decreasing activity due to family)- due to the unfortunate lack of female players in Scotland, we could quickly run out of strong enough players who have been active all year round...

Of course, everyone has other commitments (even me, someone who plays around 100 FIDE-rated games per year). Finding that bit extra time to play to ensure a chance of international honours is...worth it. I do see the point that because of a smaller player pool there could be some issues which the Open teams might not encounter and will give serious thought to that. Thanks!

(My first post on the Chess Scotland Forum- Woop Woop!!! ). Woohoo - time to take bets on how long you'll last

---

This updated criteria sounds much better to me : They were suggestions and possibilities only, but nothing is set in stone yet